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.
ok if you are so heroic maybe you could tell me what other classes did solo ascension scsii i know of cavalier on core
I wouldn't want to be accused of heroism- nor do I want to take this thread off topic- but I'll quickly respond to this question.
I've personally soloed the SCS-Ascension fight with a bounty hunter named Alesia, a sorceress named Alicia, a m/t named Alyssa, a jester named Alisa, a beastmaster named Ashanti, and an unkitted cleric named Abigail.
In the pre-SCS days I also soloed it with an avenger named Aliana and a transmuter named Alastria amongst others.
@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
1.) Spell Immunity abjuration would make it so that he can't dispel using normal means, and with some other choices he can be completely immune to spell removal.
2.) You forgot the Wildmage/Conjurer/Sorcerer got robe of Vecna so he will get the first timestop and be much quicker to cast spells, and that is where this game ends. With the extra spells they have and the always getting the first timestop, they win.
3.) A level 2 mage will win over a kensai with blind or sleep, we already went through this in the Mage Vs thread.
4.) A level 7Kensai/8Mage would fight against a level 9 mage who just happens to get his first level 5 spell, and that makes it 2 level 5 spells because of specialization (Conjurer) and he would destroy the Kensai/mage.
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.
You're most welcome. Do feel free to stop by the Bioware forums from time to time.
Best,
A.
Oh i have spent many years viewing the Bioware forums, from back when we had the old forum and having to change thread every 25 pages. I still follow the no-reload BG2 and BG1 thread, just haven't written down my own adventures. I think i started following the No-reload thread on bioware from the old forum thread #3.
And sadly there is no active no-reload thread here, so you would have to end up starting a new one or finding the old. And i would like to mention that it would get quite confusing with people playing BGEE, BG2:EE, Tutu, Trilogy and all other stuff. It wasn't so bad before because everything looked the same, but now when you see the huge difference in looks between BG:EE and the original, it would be kind of odd having them next to eachother in my opinion.
And i loved your halfling fighter, bounty hunter and the solo druid (Avenger?) very much back in the days. The polymorph sorcerer was nice but turned very powerful, while the halflings were kind of the underdog and some of the most exciting to follow in the thread.
[Edited] : This will be my last post here, not going to take it more of-topic. Thank you all for the interesting discussion and i hope the OP got what he wanted out of the thread, sorry for de-railing your thread @Pixie359
@SionIV don't apologize! I am a strong believer in letting conversations wander.
This has been really interesting, thanks all. It seems the answer is 'define your question better'.
I guess in pure power terms there is almost never a solid argument for the single classes, but I didn't really mean pure power.
There seem to be a few classes that play differently, and so have different group roles, as single v multi/dual. For example, a Kensai mage is more powerful than a mage, but I would play them very differently as the single couldn't rely on melee damage that the dual excels at.
Similarly with more specialist kits - the BH skills are late and specialist enough that it's worth persisting, rather than going to fighter earlier and missing some kit defining benefits, even if the extra apr and grand mastery would be better eventually.
Before things get out of hand here: keep in mind that things vary WILDLY with the circumstances you define. A solo run, for example, has very different demands than a party game, a no-reload challenge emphasizes safety over throughput, etc. But these are fringe cases; you could go and debate all the variables for all the cases and all the setup combinations, but I'm not sure how productive that is. Rather go by the average instead, i.e. a party game? That sounds like it would be much more helpful to people reading this, and you can always just mention special cases on the side.
Also, don't even start with "but X would win over Y in a fight!" - that doesn't say ANYTHING about a character's power in the actual game. BG was never designed with PvP in mind, it's inherently imbalanced and unfair. Stop trying to make it work, double-stop trying to use it as a measure of class power. These discussions only make sense in a PvE environment, and can only be measured by PvE performance.
As for Maze Trap: I do not doubt its power, nor that it has uses. I'm simply saying that if you look at overall performance from start to finish, having a Maze Trap is not as useful as being able to just smash your way through everything. Things are obviously different in a solo run, where special requirements and circumstances apply. After having played through SCS/As/Tac on Insane multiple times, I honestly can't think of a fight where Maze Traps would be better than alternative strategies (outside of special circumstances like solo run etc.). If you disagree, I'd be happy to hear an example.
And once more, to make sure: if you *want* to use a specific kit/class combination because you like it, that's *totally fine*. Something else being objectively better *does not make your choice invalid*. This is a game, you're supposed to have fun; if you get fun out of optimizing setups (like me) that's *just as good* a reason as having fun because of RP, or flavor, or whackiness, or whatever else you like. *But*, if you then go and try to have a *discussion* about these things, there *has* to be a certain degree of *objectivity*. If you can just go "oh well but I like X better" then that trumps every argument; there is little point in discussing anything if you plan on pulling a joker like that. Again, it's a totally understandable and totally valid position - it just doesn't have a place in objective discussion, because it's not an argument, it's an opinion.
I agree with you, but I disagree with how you present it. My main problem with your point is that you keep coming back to objectivity. But there is no objectively best option when quality is a multidimensional scale (utility, durability, speed, damage, ease of use, etc.). You need to define the weight each dimension has for you before you can pick a `best' option. And the thing is, those weights are subjective (for example, what is the best car from set of cars will be different depending on how much you value fuel consumption, acceleration, packing space, price, etc.),. So your `objective' opinions are still based on a subjective scale.
And as said before, the OP was asking about which classes were worth keeping single class. Worth is a subjective thing here, because is he looking for power, unique abilities or something else? He didn't define that, but most people here were having the discussion with the focus on unique abilities, and what they would add. Those are not just opinions, it's a fact that classes like the Avenger and the Bounty Hunter get interesting stuff when you focus on just that class. And in specific situations that people actually tried to define, they are powerful as well. Just not on your specific scale of quality, but that doesn't make those points `just opinions', nor does it make your point the objective end all argument.
@magpie: You're right, there is no absolute objectivity here, nor is there an "end all argument". You can present arguments, but when you try to present definitive conclusions, things get iffy. Still, I'm at least trying to be as objective as I can in presenting my side. The synthesis is, in the end, a personal thing that everyone has to do on their own. But the important thing is to use arguments, not opinions - saying "I prefer fighter duals because they offer more damage output and resilience" is an argument; saying "I like Avengers because they have so many cool new spells" is not. The differences and boundaries are blurry, though, and you are definitely right in that there are way too many individual variables to make it a purely objectively decidable problem. But that's fine; in fact, it's even better. Serving people "end all argument"-solutions is usually far less productive than demonstrating to them a flow of argument and counter-argument that they are forced to evaluate THEMSELVES. Doubly so in an environment so wildly contingent on individual setups. But that still means you have to present arguments
I normally end up having a couple of either dual or multiclasses in my parties due to using unmodded vanilla NPCs, and I hadn't thought about the challenge of having a pure-classed party.
I suppose the Evil party setup in BG2:EE with Dorn, Korgan, Sarevok, Edwin, Viconia and possibly Hexxat is pure-class.
Considering I like to have 3 melee, 1 thief, 2 arcane and 2 divine casters I am fairly dual/multi dependent.
@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
1.) Spell Immunity abjuration would make it so that he can't dispel using normal means, and with some other choices he can be completely immune to spell removal.
2.) You forgot the Wildmage/Conjurer/Sorcerer got robe of Vecna so he will get the first timestop and be much quicker to cast spells, and that is where this game ends. With the extra spells they have and the always getting the first timestop, they win.
3.) A level 2 mage will win over a kensai with blind or sleep, we already went through this in the Mage Vs thread.
4.) A level 7Kensai/8Mage would fight against a level 9 mage who just happens to get his first level 5 spell, and that makes it 2 level 5 spells because of specialization (Conjurer) and he would destroy the Kensai/mage.
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.
You're most welcome. Do feel free to stop by the Bioware forums from time to time.
Best,
A.
Oh i have spent many years viewing the Bioware forums, from back when we had the old forum and having to change thread every 25 pages. I still follow the no-reload BG2 and BG1 thread, just haven't written down my own adventures. I think i started following the No-reload thread on bioware from the old forum thread #3.
And sadly there is no active no-reload thread here, so you would have to end up starting a new one or finding the old. And i would like to mention that it would get quite confusing with people playing BGEE, BG2:EE, Tutu, Trilogy and all other stuff. It wasn't so bad before because everything looked the same, but now when you see the huge difference in looks between BG:EE and the original, it would be kind of odd having them next to eachother in my opinion.
And i loved your halfling fighter, bounty hunter and the solo druid (Avenger?) very much back in the days. The polymorph sorcerer was nice but turned very powerful, while the halflings were kind of the underdog and some of the most exciting to follow in the thread.
[Edited] : This will be my last post here, not going to take it more of-topic. Thank you all for the interesting discussion and i hope the OP got what he wanted out of the thread, sorry for de-railing your thread @Pixie359
i think you are argumenting only for the sake of argumenting and always (like in barb vs berserker thread) just get everything wrong or put stupid stuff like
"1.) Spell Immunity abjuration would make it so that he can't dispel using normal means, and with some other choices he can be completely immune to spell removal.
2.) You forgot the Wildmage/Conjurer/Sorcerer got robe of Vecna so he will get the first timestop and be much quicker to cast spells, and that is where this game ends. With the extra spells they have and the always getting the first timestop, they win."
kensai/mage can use spell immunity too klensai/mage wears robe of vecna too conjurer level 9 5th level spells vs kensai/mage 4th level spells 200% hp of conjurer slashing 3apr+ blind sleep he can save
Actually, in BG:EE bounty hunter's special traps has been nerfed. They aren't throwable anymore. Apparently this change will be kept in BG2:EE as well.
1st: Spook, Spook, Blind, Blind, Shield (or another spook or even a MM might be ok) 2nd: Acid Arrow, Acid Arrow, Glitterdust, Ray of Enfeeblement (or another Glitterdust) 3rd: Haste, Slow, MS1, Dispel Magic 4th: GM, MS2, Emo:Hope 5th: Some combination of Animate Dead/Feeblemind/Hold Monster, depending on how big of a $%#^ you wanna be.
=
Dead Kensage. (and not just kensage, that's pretty much my general purpose spell list (except replace the acid arrows with Web), unless I know something is going to be completely useless in that area).
Much like any mage battle, the first disabling spell to work wins.
The kensage has to choose between trying to throw up a defense or counter-disabling. If it doesn't work, they're dead.
Kensages aren't made for duels, they're made for throughput, since they aren't totally useless when out of spells. And when it comes to mages, generally, the most powerful and better prepared is going to win 9/10 times, though magic does at least have the chance of failure, so nothing is 100% guaranteed.
Actually, in BG:EE bounty hunter's special traps has been nerfed. They aren't throwable anymore. Apparently this change will be kept in BG2:EE as well.
...
OVERHAUL GAMES WHYYYYYYYYY
(though to be honest that's probably a good thing, it was a bit silly before)
I'm pissed about it, because they did that, despite it not only being "a feature" as the exploit-supporters would say, but won't correct R/C, Mislead, Project Image, Fighter>X proficiency exploits (and several more), which are actually wrong by every available source material (for no reason), where as throwing traps was actually LEGIT (though they should've made them affect ALL targets in range, instead of being party friendly, since while a thief can rig up a grenade-like proximity trap, it can't tell friend and foe apart).
1st: Spook, Spook, Blind, Blind, Shield (or another spook or even a MM might be ok) 2nd: Acid Arrow, Acid Arrow, Glitterdust, Ray of Enfeeblement (or another Glitterdust) 3rd: Haste, Slow, MS1, Dispel Magic 4th: GM, MS2, Emo:Hope 5th: Some combination of Animate Dead/Feeblemind/Hold Monster, depending on how big of a $%#^ you wanna be.
=
Dead Kensage. (and not just kensage, that's pretty much my general purpose spell list (except replace the acid arrows with Web), unless I know something is going to be completely useless in that area).
Much like any mage battle, the first disabling spell to work wins.
The kensage has to choose between trying to throw up a defense or counter-disabling. If it doesn't work, they're dead.
Kensages aren't made for duels, they're made for throughput, since they aren't totally useless when out of spells. And when it comes to mages, generally, the most powerful and better prepared is going to win 9/10 times, though magic does at least have the chance of failure, so nothing is 100% guaranteed.
i don't understand
you list mage spells kensai/mage is a mage
he is a mage so he is doing the same thing you do + he is superior to 90% of classes in close combat dps
how can you argue that? are you like blind?
i am going to say how this would work
kensai/mage vs some specialist mage
they throw spells if mage spell does work and kensai/mage doesn't - mage need to destroy kensai hp with something probably not spell because spells are limited to 1 per round and you would need many rounds of magic missles fireballs etc. throwing bullets from sling vs high hp character like kensai would be pretty funny too
if mage spell doesn't work and kensai/mage does - kensai kills mage with 3 hits ~
ok if you are so heroic maybe you could tell me what other classes did solo ascension scsii i know of cavalier on core
I wouldn't want to be accused of heroism- nor do I want to take this thread off topic- but I'll quickly respond to this question.
I've personally soloed the SCS-Ascension fight with a bounty hunter named Alesia, a sorceress named Alicia, a m/t named Alyssa, a jester named Alisa, a beastmaster named Ashanti, and an unkitted cleric named Abigail.
In the pre-SCS days I also soloed it with an avenger named Aliana and a transmuter named Alastria amongst others.
Best,
A.
well i should ask about non-mage like characters but i see u wrote everything so THX! i think cleric and beastmaster was really hardcore
I've always preferred single class characters, and grew to appreciate the journey of a character that is not power gamer orientated a whole lot more than those that are.
I have mainly played as a single class Ranger or a single class Thief. I progressed later to the single class Swashbuckler. I had a lot of fun with each.
@Lord_Tansheron: From one lord to another, I understand your message and to some extent I agree with you, but let me rephrase it in my own terms starting at my second point below.
First, to be on topic: let me just say that I love swashbucklers and, more recently, bard kits. Bards cannot multiclass or dual class, and that's fine because bards are innately like several classes at once. As for swashbucklers: technically you cannot dual-class INTO one, which leaves the tough choice of when to leave them for another class (if you even want to). AC-wise they have the same appeal as a kensai for mages, trading melee power for rogue utility. Honestly, I thought long and hard about dual-classing out of swashbuckler but I eventually decided that I just don't want to, the class is fun on its own and I want to max out the thief skills.
Second, the thing I find appealing about dual-classing or multi-classing is not *raw power* per se, but rather utility. Options. Tricks up my sleeve. Example: for this fight, my fighter/mage/thief wears his ankheg plate armor and dishes out weapon damage. Some magic items dropped? I take the armor off, cast Identify once or twice, put the armor back on and keep going. Then I get to a stretch of dungeon corridor that I detect some traps on (which works even with armor on). I take the armor off (after making sure there aren't archers waiting on the other side!) and disarm the traps, then put it back on and go on my merry way. Finally, I encounter a nasty fight I have the option to avoid. Perhaps I sneak past it if my thief skill is high enough; perhaps I cast invisibility if my mage level is high enough. That character isn't better at fighting than a fighter, not better at thievery than a thief, not better at spellcasting than a mage. They just have some kind of answer for every situation.
When Lord Tansheron said a kensai/mage might be better 90% of the time, I think he was referring to fighting your typical encounters in a standard group setup. The kensai/mage has the added utility (and reduced micromanagement) of being able to use melee as a convenient backup for any situation. This might mean you don't spend as much time sleeping because you don't burn as many spells, and you have more HP to soak up accidents. Here's the kicker: I'm not saying the kensai/mage is downright more powerful. No, a well-prepared specialist mage is truly a thing to behold in sublime awe, particularly on boss fights. But a kensai/mage has greater versatility: he can fill a different role in the group and has a trick up his sleeve that a typical mage does not. I believe there is strength in versatility, which is why I favor mixed-ability classes like swashbuckler and jester, and it's why I like multi-class characters, no matter their combination.
The strength of a single-classed character should not be belittled or underestimated, I think they establish their purpose in the group better than a character strung out on multiple classes. If you desire characters who have a wide range of versatility and an answer for every situation, then duals and multis make great additions, especially if you have your important roles covered by a single-class character.
I tend to agree. You always have your favorite spells on call, there's no fiddling around with trying to find scrolls, and if you're a dragon disciple then you're also a lot more sturdy than a typical mage. That doesn't mean they're my favorite class to play though.
Mostly, my earlier post still says everything I meant to say.
You are still severely overestimating the offensive potential of spells. Spells are amazing for buffing, debuffing, and dispelling, but they are *not* amazing for damage output. Standing there whacking stuff with 10 APR and a +5 weapon is. Kensai->Mages don't "use melee as a convenient backup for any situation", they use it first and foremost as the primary thing they are doing. Make no mistake, they are frontline high-dps fighters above all else. The spells they use are to make sure they 1) don't die, ever, and 2) hit anything and everything. The fact that they are really fighters first and mages second *is what makes them so good*.
Anyway, I wasn't talking about Kensai->Mages being a replacement for everything in this debate (just as a facetious generalization in response to someone), I was talking about other class combinations being replacements for their respective single classes. K->Ms don't have anything to do with those, unless we're talking about mages or fighters.
My larger point was simply that while you can certainly take "utility" as an option, and make it a point of your debate, you should always keep in mind how superfluous that utility is in a large majority of cases. There are very few spells and abilities actually worth using regularly - I'm talking 10% of what's available, or something equally outrageously low. "Worth" in this case assumes maximum efficiency, and no other concerns. Those other concerns, of course, are often what makes things fun for people; but as I said before, everyone thinks differently about what in particular is fun for them, so there's little point debating it.
To clarify (and exculpate): "utility", as people put it, is a large part of the game's flavor, depth, and richness. However, if you want to get through the game as efficiently as possible, the vast majority of utility skills is completely irrelevant and utterly superfluous. This is not a judgement, just a statement. It's totally fine if people want to use them, for whatever private reason they have. But there really is no argument other than "I like it" involved. That argument is, again, totally valid and very, VERY important for personal enjoyment, but since no two people like the same two things there is little point in debating it. If you like something, that's great, even if it's not the theoretically best option. You can debate that theoretically best option, though, and establish a baseline. From there, you can add flavor to your liking, and yours alone.
@LordRumfish I think the "melee as a backup" approach to fighter/mage is the wrong approach. Well, I guess "wrong" is a bad way to put it considering the discussion but what I mean to say is that you get more mileage out of the class by playing it a different way. Fighters, especially Kensai are all about DPS and adding a fighter class to your dual means you're trading some of the utility of a specialized mage/sorceror for the raw damage of a fighter. So beating things down should be your main approach to most things, with magic providing defenses and handling the situations that brute force can't. If you take the reverse approach, meleeing things that magic can't handle, you'll find little use for your melee skills because magic can handle just about anything. It'll feel more like a gimped caster than anything, when you could be an invincible fighter.
@Lord_Tansheron: I think you and I may be using the word "utility" in different ways. I understand that 90% of spells don't get used (Infravision? Detect Evil? Shocking Grasp?) but that isn't how I use the word utility. I mean you are using the 10% of usefulness of another class when you multiclass, the "utility" I'm talking about is the 10% of each facet that's worth using. You can't deny it's darned convenient not to have to go back to town to identify a magic item, or to be able to avoid traps, or to unlock a crypt that has a Tome of Strength +1. I'm talking nuts-and-bolts here, not pie-in-the-sky niche abilities.
@LordRumfish I think the "melee as a backup" approach to fighter/mage is the wrong approach. Well, I guess "wrong" is a bad way to put it considering the discussion but what I mean to say is that you get more mileage out of the class by playing it a different way. Fighters, especially Kensai are all about DPS and adding a fighter class to your dual means you're trading some of the utility of a specialized mage/sorceror for the raw damage of a fighter. So beating things down should be your main approach to most things, with magic providing defenses and handling the situations that brute force can't. If you take the reverse approach, meleeing things that magic can't handle, you'll find little use for your melee skills because magic can handle just about anything. It'll feel more like a gimped caster than anything, when you could be an invincible fighter.
I admit this makes sense now that I think about it. I've never bothered to look into why people seem so drawn to kensai/mages. It seems downright weird that most of the character's levels will be in mage, but you'll play them like a buffing barbarian. In 3rd edition, if most of your levels were in wizard, you'd probably fight like a wizard unless you have a very weird set of spells prepared each day. I guess that's one of the differences in the 2nd edition experience table: exploiting the curve with dual-classing. I find the playstyle unintuitive at first glance.
@LordRumfish Yeah, it's unintuitive for sure. It exploits the fact that mages keep scaling for a long time while certain classes cap out earlier. So a 13 fighter won't actually be that much worse of a fighter compared to a 30 fighter, and you're trading a bunch of "useless" fighter levels for useful mage ones. Of course a 13 kensai misses a lot of the kensai bonuses, but your fighting ability will still be more than enough (heck 9 kensai is more than enough) and even kensai levels aren't as great as mage levels. In a more balanced system, we'd have better scaling for all classes and dual classing wouldn't be so exploitable... but such are the mechanics of the game.
@LordRumfish: I understand what you mean, and I am talking about the same sort of utility. It's amazing what you can cut and trim when you get down to it, though. Traps and locks, for example, can almost completely be ignored. There are maybe two locks in the entire game you need to pick/Knock instead of bashing them open (I don't know the actual number, but among those blocking anything remotely useful it's a ludicrously small number indeed); Glasses of Identification completely eliminate the need for anyone to identify through other means; and so on.
You can definitely find some QoL if you try hard, but think about what you actually "need" if you plan on doing things efficiently. Again, I'm not saying this is a representation of actual scenarios, but it's the baseline. Trading convenience for performance is not optimal play; you may choose to do so for personal reasons many times, but it's still not optimal. That's the key issue here: you have a baseline of what is "the most powerful", and from there you can make choices to take a sub-optimal path in exchange for QoL, convenience, flavor, etc. etc. Those choices are not something that can be agreed upon or objectively decided, but the baseline can be.
@Lord_Tansheron: You make an interesting case. By any chance are you the sort of player who enjoys no-reload insane difficulty games, or is this argument mostly rhetorical? I'm not condemning you either way, everyone enjoys the game differently.
There is the matter to be considered of how many hoops you have to jump through to get your build working in the first place. You don't begin the game with Glasses of Identification, and a surprising number of locks resist even 19 Strength (I believe the % chance to open works on a similar principle to a like amount of open lock skill, but I could be wildly inaccurate, I just know I was frustrated by how many locks would resist my otherwise mighty characters). You need an encyclopedic knowledge of traps to make sure you aren't going to step on one that just kills you, and taking 3/4ths of your health isn't ideal either (do you just carry around a crate of healing potions to deal with most traps?). Similarly, you have to coax a kensai through the early levels and then deal with leveling up mage (going from level 13 sounds painful). It's a lot of work, a number of missed opportunities and inconveniencing yourself to get this build. You don't become "optimal" for quite a while, where a utility build has you covered from day 1.
I know what you're going to say: if we're talking about optimization, more of the game takes place at higher levels in BG2 and ToB so the build will play out more efficiently in the long run even though the utility build takes the nod while you're working towards critical mass. I reiterate: before your build is in place, it is sub-optimal, so there is some amount of gameplay time that you have to trade for future potential goodness as opposed to goodness *right now*.
Still, you make an interesting case. I wonder how feasible your work-arounds are.
While Kensai->Mages are often considered optimal, standard multiclass Fighter/Mages are pretty close and don't require the early Kensai phase with accompanying squishyness. You still start out as a bit of a gimped fighter, but as soon as you get an archmage robe and mirror image you become a force to be reckoned with.
A kensage brings nothing worthwhile to a mage battle. While they do have stronger melee then a pure mage would, it is meaningless, since the battle will ultimately come down to whose disabling spells worked first. I already included the Kensage's potential to have the same list in the original post. They have a choice, they can either try to throw up a defense to stop the debuffs or they can try to counter disable, that's it..any other choice results in their death.
Those are their only choices. And much like any mage battle, the first to succeed will usually win. The two characters are moving at the same speed, therefore as long as the mage continues to move away after casting, he can get off several spells before the kensai can close the distance. And it only takes 1 spell working for the mage to win, since the kensai is rendered helpless the moment they become spooked or blinded, allowing additional debuffs to be added to prevent them from dispelling, if they memorized it. The only counter is for the kensai to attempt to treat the battle as a true mage battle and avoid melee, removing all the benefit of being a part-fighter in the first place.
AS people know so far, I hate Direct damage spells and consider them not worth memorizing 99.9% of the time, but since BG doesn't include Silence (the reversed form of vocalize) I had to include Melf's AA as a back-up disruptor to add an extra layer of protection against the enemy getting a spell off. Technically speaking, summon swarm would've been the preferred spell disruptor (pretty much insect swarm, except 2nd level) but that spell wasn't implemented.
You apparently are grossly under-estimating how strong summons can be if used properly, instead of treated as expendable meat-shields. Sure, they're fragile, but they are easily the most damaging spells available for their slot up to 6th level. (and beyond if BG had included MS IV-VII).
A single hasted Ogrillion could kill a blinded kenage in 4-5 rounds. 2-3 if they're held or otherwise incapacitated so the attacks can't miss. A couple hasted kobold archers can tear them apart easily as well. Skeleton warriors are just plain unfair before being hasted. And ogres or ogre berserkers as well. MS2 Hobgoblins can poison the target for extra nastiness.
Even though BG gimped the spells, they are still quite powerful. That's the main point, a mage doesn't have to get his hands dirty with combat, he has spells to do that for him.
--------------------------------
I personally can't see why people say the Kensage is good. The berserker is flat out better, and the F/M is comparable after taking into account all the extra gear it allows them to use. Sure they can deal a little bit more damage under kai, but you only get 3 casts of it, while the berserker basically gets a bunch of free spell slots by not having to memorize any defensive spells, meaning they can take more spells, and deal much more damage then Kai can possibly add. And while Kai gives the kensage a slight advantage over the F/M, the F/M can use other gear to free-up spell slots though not quite to the extent the Berserker can via enrage, and gets 23 HLA picks as opposed to the 8 or so a kensage/Berserkage gets.
@LordRumfish: I do play on the most extreme end of the spectrum, yes. Most of my enjoyment of the game comes from constant optimization and streamlining, trying to maximize efficiency. That is not for everyone, but it does lead me to investigate and analyze things more in-depth, the results of which can be helpful for less perfectionist players, too.
As for the "hoops", that is factored into the equation as well. I used to dual at 13, but now found that despite the lack of damage output, it is very likely more efficient to dual at 9 instead. That makes the transition quite painless, given the amount of XP you can metagame from quest-rewards etc. As for the traps, there's three insta-death traps in BG2, I think, and one maze (which is insta-death for CHARNAME): petrification traps in the slum sewers next to the Kobold Shaman, on the steps before the "bridge test" in the catacombs of the Cult of the Eyeless, and before the "bridge maze" in the same area. Those are the ones you have to cross anyway, there might be more in optional but irrelevant locations, I don't quite remember. Either way, it's a ludicrously low amount to be worrying about them, and you never send CHARNAME in first anyway (petrification is super easy to reverse or immune against). I could go on about more such details, suffice it to say that metaknowledge can be an impressive substitute for "utility". It, like many other things, is not for everyone of course; if you don't have the metaknowledge, or prefer not to exploit it, that's totally fine. Similarly, if you play things like no-reload or solo, the parameters change and you may or may not need additional tools. Always tailor things to your own particular needs!
@ZanathKariashi: your problems with the Kensai->Mage's effectiveness probably stem from the fact that you consistently bring up imaginary "mage battles" between players that never happen in the game, ever. As I keep pointing out, PvP is not a valid tool in analyzing power levels because it is grossly unbalanced and a misrepresentation of the actual (PvE) game. It is no big surprise that things seem skewed if you set the conditions that way.
The reason Berserkers aren't quite as good as Kensais for the mage dual is that their rage immunities are largely superfluous in the face of mage defensive buffs. There are very few situations in which they would matter, while the extra damage of a Kensai applies all day every day. "Extra spell slots" as you put it don't really matter; you virtually never take something else as a Kensai vs. a Berserker, with the possible exception of the two Demilich fights in the game (where a Berserker can use Rage to block Imprisonment and a Kensai needs a spell).
Keep in mind that you may not see the finer distinctions if you play a low-difficulty game, particularly if it's unmodded. Doesn't mean the choice isn't objectively better still, you just don't realize it as directly as you would in a high-difficulty environment. It may not matter if you do 1000 or 10000 damage if the enemy only has 100hp, but 1000 is still < 10000. BG is a highly diverse game, given the plethora of mods available. If your particular setup makes the fine print irrelevant, that's fine, and you should always choose according to your own circumstances - just keep in mind that you can't take your particular position as an absolute, because the next guy over has a completely different setup with completely different needs and variables; they may just have those 100.000hp mobs, and suddenly it all matters a lot! That's what the baseline is for, and everyone can make their own, informed decisions from there.
Comments
I've personally soloed the SCS-Ascension fight with a bounty hunter named Alesia, a sorceress named Alicia, a m/t named Alyssa, a jester named Alisa, a beastmaster named Ashanti, and an unkitted cleric named Abigail.
In the pre-SCS days I also soloed it with an avenger named Aliana and a transmuter named Alastria amongst others.
Best,
A.
2.) You forgot the Wildmage/Conjurer/Sorcerer got robe of Vecna so he will get the first timestop and be much quicker to cast spells, and that is where this game ends. With the extra spells they have and the always getting the first timestop, they win.
3.) A level 2 mage will win over a kensai with blind or sleep, we already went through this in the Mage Vs thread.
4.) A level 7Kensai/8Mage would fight against a level 9 mage who just happens to get his first level 5 spell, and that makes it 2 level 5 spells because of specialization (Conjurer) and he would destroy the Kensai/mage. Oh i have spent many years viewing the Bioware forums, from back when we had the old forum and having to change thread every 25 pages. I still follow the no-reload BG2 and BG1 thread, just haven't written down my own adventures. I think i started following the No-reload thread on bioware from the old forum thread #3.
And sadly there is no active no-reload thread here, so you would have to end up starting a new one or finding the old. And i would like to mention that it would get quite confusing with people playing BGEE, BG2:EE, Tutu, Trilogy and all other stuff. It wasn't so bad before because everything looked the same, but now when you see the huge difference in looks between BG:EE and the original, it would be kind of odd having them next to eachother in my opinion.
And i loved your halfling fighter, bounty hunter and the solo druid (Avenger?) very much back in the days. The polymorph sorcerer was nice but turned very powerful, while the halflings were kind of the underdog and some of the most exciting to follow in the thread.
[Edited] : This will be my last post here, not going to take it more of-topic. Thank you all for the interesting discussion and i hope the OP got what he wanted out of the thread, sorry for de-railing your thread @Pixie359
This has been really interesting, thanks all. It seems the answer is 'define your question better'.
I guess in pure power terms there is almost never a solid argument for the single classes, but I didn't really mean pure power.
There seem to be a few classes that play differently, and so have different group roles, as single v multi/dual. For example, a Kensai mage is more powerful than a mage, but I would play them very differently as the single couldn't rely on melee damage that the dual excels at.
Similarly with more specialist kits - the BH skills are late and specialist enough that it's worth persisting, rather than going to fighter earlier and missing some kit defining benefits, even if the extra apr and grand mastery would be better eventually.
Also, don't even start with "but X would win over Y in a fight!" - that doesn't say ANYTHING about a character's power in the actual game. BG was never designed with PvP in mind, it's inherently imbalanced and unfair. Stop trying to make it work, double-stop trying to use it as a measure of class power. These discussions only make sense in a PvE environment, and can only be measured by PvE performance.
As for Maze Trap: I do not doubt its power, nor that it has uses. I'm simply saying that if you look at overall performance from start to finish, having a Maze Trap is not as useful as being able to just smash your way through everything. Things are obviously different in a solo run, where special requirements and circumstances apply. After having played through SCS/As/Tac on Insane multiple times, I honestly can't think of a fight where Maze Traps would be better than alternative strategies (outside of special circumstances like solo run etc.). If you disagree, I'd be happy to hear an example.
And once more, to make sure: if you *want* to use a specific kit/class combination because you like it, that's *totally fine*. Something else being objectively better *does not make your choice invalid*. This is a game, you're supposed to have fun; if you get fun out of optimizing setups (like me) that's *just as good* a reason as having fun because of RP, or flavor, or whackiness, or whatever else you like. *But*, if you then go and try to have a *discussion* about these things, there *has* to be a certain degree of *objectivity*. If you can just go "oh well but I like X better" then that trumps every argument; there is little point in discussing anything if you plan on pulling a joker like that. Again, it's a totally understandable and totally valid position - it just doesn't have a place in objective discussion, because it's not an argument, it's an opinion.
And as said before, the OP was asking about which classes were worth keeping single class. Worth is a subjective thing here, because is he looking for power, unique abilities or something else? He didn't define that, but most people here were having the discussion with the focus on unique abilities, and what they would add. Those are not just opinions, it's a fact that classes like the Avenger and the Bounty Hunter get interesting stuff when you focus on just that class. And in specific situations that people actually tried to define, they are powerful as well. Just not on your specific scale of quality, but that doesn't make those points `just opinions', nor does it make your point the objective end all argument.
I suppose the Evil party setup in BG2:EE with Dorn, Korgan, Sarevok, Edwin, Viconia and possibly Hexxat is pure-class.
Considering I like to have 3 melee, 1 thief, 2 arcane and 2 divine casters I am fairly dual/multi dependent.
"1.) Spell Immunity abjuration would make it so that he can't dispel using normal means, and with some other choices he can be completely immune to spell removal.
2.) You forgot the Wildmage/Conjurer/Sorcerer got robe of Vecna so he will get the first timestop and be much quicker to cast spells, and that is where this game ends. With the extra spells they have and the always getting the first timestop, they win."
kensai/mage can use spell immunity too
klensai/mage wears robe of vecna too
conjurer level 9 5th level spells vs kensai/mage 4th level spells 200% hp of conjurer slashing 3apr+
blind sleep he can save
2nd: Acid Arrow, Acid Arrow, Glitterdust, Ray of Enfeeblement (or another Glitterdust)
3rd: Haste, Slow, MS1, Dispel Magic
4th: GM, MS2, Emo:Hope
5th: Some combination of Animate Dead/Feeblemind/Hold Monster, depending on how big of a $%#^ you wanna be.
=
Dead Kensage. (and not just kensage, that's pretty much my general purpose spell list (except replace the acid arrows with Web), unless I know something is going to be completely useless in that area).
Much like any mage battle, the first disabling spell to work wins.
The kensage has to choose between trying to throw up a defense or counter-disabling. If it doesn't work, they're dead.
Kensages aren't made for duels, they're made for throughput, since they aren't totally useless when out of spells. And when it comes to mages, generally, the most powerful and better prepared is going to win 9/10 times, though magic does at least have the chance of failure, so nothing is 100% guaranteed.
OVERHAUL GAMES WHYYYYYYYYY
(though to be honest that's probably a good thing, it was a bit silly before)
you list mage spells
kensai/mage is a mage
he is a mage so he is doing the same thing you do + he is superior to 90% of classes in close combat dps
how can you argue that? are you like blind?
i am going to say how this would work
kensai/mage vs some specialist mage
they throw spells
if mage spell does work and kensai/mage doesn't - mage need to destroy kensai hp with something probably not spell because spells are limited to 1 per round and you would need many rounds of magic missles fireballs etc. throwing bullets from sling vs high hp character like kensai would be pretty funny too
if mage spell doesn't work and kensai/mage does - kensai kills mage with 3 hits ~
do u still think mages are so op vs kensai/mages?
I have mainly played as a single class Ranger or a single class Thief. I progressed later to the single class Swashbuckler. I had a lot of fun with each.
First, to be on topic: let me just say that I love swashbucklers and, more recently, bard kits. Bards cannot multiclass or dual class, and that's fine because bards are innately like several classes at once. As for swashbucklers: technically you cannot dual-class INTO one, which leaves the tough choice of when to leave them for another class (if you even want to). AC-wise they have the same appeal as a kensai for mages, trading melee power for rogue utility. Honestly, I thought long and hard about dual-classing out of swashbuckler but I eventually decided that I just don't want to, the class is fun on its own and I want to max out the thief skills.
Second, the thing I find appealing about dual-classing or multi-classing is not *raw power* per se, but rather utility. Options. Tricks up my sleeve. Example: for this fight, my fighter/mage/thief wears his ankheg plate armor and dishes out weapon damage. Some magic items dropped? I take the armor off, cast Identify once or twice, put the armor back on and keep going. Then I get to a stretch of dungeon corridor that I detect some traps on (which works even with armor on). I take the armor off (after making sure there aren't archers waiting on the other side!) and disarm the traps, then put it back on and go on my merry way. Finally, I encounter a nasty fight I have the option to avoid. Perhaps I sneak past it if my thief skill is high enough; perhaps I cast invisibility if my mage level is high enough. That character isn't better at fighting than a fighter, not better at thievery than a thief, not better at spellcasting than a mage. They just have some kind of answer for every situation.
When Lord Tansheron said a kensai/mage might be better 90% of the time, I think he was referring to fighting your typical encounters in a standard group setup. The kensai/mage has the added utility (and reduced micromanagement) of being able to use melee as a convenient backup for any situation. This might mean you don't spend as much time sleeping because you don't burn as many spells, and you have more HP to soak up accidents. Here's the kicker: I'm not saying the kensai/mage is downright more powerful. No, a well-prepared specialist mage is truly a thing to behold in sublime awe, particularly on boss fights. But a kensai/mage has greater versatility: he can fill a different role in the group and has a trick up his sleeve that a typical mage does not. I believe there is strength in versatility, which is why I favor mixed-ability classes like swashbuckler and jester, and it's why I like multi-class characters, no matter their combination.
The strength of a single-classed character should not be belittled or underestimated, I think they establish their purpose in the group better than a character strung out on multiple classes. If you desire characters who have a wide range of versatility and an answer for every situation, then duals and multis make great additions, especially if you have your important roles covered by a single-class character.
Mostly, my earlier post still says everything I meant to say.
Anyway, I wasn't talking about Kensai->Mages being a replacement for everything in this debate (just as a facetious generalization in response to someone), I was talking about other class combinations being replacements for their respective single classes. K->Ms don't have anything to do with those, unless we're talking about mages or fighters.
My larger point was simply that while you can certainly take "utility" as an option, and make it a point of your debate, you should always keep in mind how superfluous that utility is in a large majority of cases. There are very few spells and abilities actually worth using regularly - I'm talking 10% of what's available, or something equally outrageously low. "Worth" in this case assumes maximum efficiency, and no other concerns. Those other concerns, of course, are often what makes things fun for people; but as I said before, everyone thinks differently about what in particular is fun for them, so there's little point debating it.
To clarify (and exculpate): "utility", as people put it, is a large part of the game's flavor, depth, and richness. However, if you want to get through the game as efficiently as possible, the vast majority of utility skills is completely irrelevant and utterly superfluous. This is not a judgement, just a statement. It's totally fine if people want to use them, for whatever private reason they have. But there really is no argument other than "I like it" involved. That argument is, again, totally valid and very, VERY important for personal enjoyment, but since no two people like the same two things there is little point in debating it. If you like something, that's great, even if it's not the theoretically best option. You can debate that theoretically best option, though, and establish a baseline. From there, you can add flavor to your liking, and yours alone.
You can definitely find some QoL if you try hard, but think about what you actually "need" if you plan on doing things efficiently. Again, I'm not saying this is a representation of actual scenarios, but it's the baseline. Trading convenience for performance is not optimal play; you may choose to do so for personal reasons many times, but it's still not optimal. That's the key issue here: you have a baseline of what is "the most powerful", and from there you can make choices to take a sub-optimal path in exchange for QoL, convenience, flavor, etc. etc. Those choices are not something that can be agreed upon or objectively decided, but the baseline can be.
There is the matter to be considered of how many hoops you have to jump through to get your build working in the first place. You don't begin the game with Glasses of Identification, and a surprising number of locks resist even 19 Strength (I believe the % chance to open works on a similar principle to a like amount of open lock skill, but I could be wildly inaccurate, I just know I was frustrated by how many locks would resist my otherwise mighty characters). You need an encyclopedic knowledge of traps to make sure you aren't going to step on one that just kills you, and taking 3/4ths of your health isn't ideal either (do you just carry around a crate of healing potions to deal with most traps?). Similarly, you have to coax a kensai through the early levels and then deal with leveling up mage (going from level 13 sounds painful). It's a lot of work, a number of missed opportunities and inconveniencing yourself to get this build. You don't become "optimal" for quite a while, where a utility build has you covered from day 1.
I know what you're going to say: if we're talking about optimization, more of the game takes place at higher levels in BG2 and ToB so the build will play out more efficiently in the long run even though the utility build takes the nod while you're working towards critical mass. I reiterate: before your build is in place, it is sub-optimal, so there is some amount of gameplay time that you have to trade for future potential goodness as opposed to goodness *right now*.
Still, you make an interesting case. I wonder how feasible your work-arounds are.
A kensage brings nothing worthwhile to a mage battle. While they do have stronger melee then a pure mage would, it is meaningless, since the battle will ultimately come down to whose disabling spells worked first. I already included the Kensage's potential to have the same list in the original post. They have a choice, they can either try to throw up a defense to stop the debuffs or they can try to counter disable, that's it..any other choice results in their death.
Those are their only choices. And much like any mage battle, the first to succeed will usually win. The two characters are moving at the same speed, therefore as long as the mage continues to move away after casting, he can get off several spells before the kensai can close the distance. And it only takes 1 spell working for the mage to win, since the kensai is rendered helpless the moment they become spooked or blinded, allowing additional debuffs to be added to prevent them from dispelling, if they memorized it. The only counter is for the kensai to attempt to treat the battle as a true mage battle and avoid melee, removing all the benefit of being a part-fighter in the first place.
AS people know so far, I hate Direct damage spells and consider them not worth memorizing 99.9% of the time, but since BG doesn't include Silence (the reversed form of vocalize) I had to include Melf's AA as a back-up disruptor to add an extra layer of protection against the enemy getting a spell off. Technically speaking, summon swarm would've been the preferred spell disruptor (pretty much insect swarm, except 2nd level) but that spell wasn't implemented.
You apparently are grossly under-estimating how strong summons can be if used properly, instead of treated as expendable meat-shields. Sure, they're fragile, but they are easily the most damaging spells available for their slot up to 6th level. (and beyond if BG had included MS IV-VII).
A single hasted Ogrillion could kill a blinded kenage in 4-5 rounds. 2-3 if they're held or otherwise incapacitated so the attacks can't miss. A couple hasted kobold archers can tear them apart easily as well. Skeleton warriors are just plain unfair before being hasted. And ogres or ogre berserkers as well. MS2 Hobgoblins can poison the target for extra nastiness.
Even though BG gimped the spells, they are still quite powerful. That's the main point, a mage doesn't have to get his hands dirty with combat, he has spells to do that for him.
--------------------------------
I personally can't see why people say the Kensage is good. The berserker is flat out better, and the F/M is comparable after taking into account all the extra gear it allows them to use. Sure they can deal a little bit more damage under kai, but you only get 3 casts of it, while the berserker basically gets a bunch of free spell slots by not having to memorize any defensive spells, meaning they can take more spells, and deal much more damage then Kai can possibly add. And while Kai gives the kensage a slight advantage over the F/M, the F/M can use other gear to free-up spell slots though not quite to the extent the Berserker can via enrage, and gets 23 HLA picks as opposed to the 8 or so a kensage/Berserkage gets.
As for the "hoops", that is factored into the equation as well. I used to dual at 13, but now found that despite the lack of damage output, it is very likely more efficient to dual at 9 instead. That makes the transition quite painless, given the amount of XP you can metagame from quest-rewards etc. As for the traps, there's three insta-death traps in BG2, I think, and one maze (which is insta-death for CHARNAME): petrification traps in the slum sewers next to the Kobold Shaman, on the steps before the "bridge test" in the catacombs of the Cult of the Eyeless, and before the "bridge maze" in the same area. Those are the ones you have to cross anyway, there might be more in optional but irrelevant locations, I don't quite remember. Either way, it's a ludicrously low amount to be worrying about them, and you never send CHARNAME in first anyway (petrification is super easy to reverse or immune against). I could go on about more such details, suffice it to say that metaknowledge can be an impressive substitute for "utility". It, like many other things, is not for everyone of course; if you don't have the metaknowledge, or prefer not to exploit it, that's totally fine. Similarly, if you play things like no-reload or solo, the parameters change and you may or may not need additional tools. Always tailor things to your own particular needs!
@ZanathKariashi: your problems with the Kensai->Mage's effectiveness probably stem from the fact that you consistently bring up imaginary "mage battles" between players that never happen in the game, ever. As I keep pointing out, PvP is not a valid tool in analyzing power levels because it is grossly unbalanced and a misrepresentation of the actual (PvE) game. It is no big surprise that things seem skewed if you set the conditions that way.
The reason Berserkers aren't quite as good as Kensais for the mage dual is that their rage immunities are largely superfluous in the face of mage defensive buffs. There are very few situations in which they would matter, while the extra damage of a Kensai applies all day every day. "Extra spell slots" as you put it don't really matter; you virtually never take something else as a Kensai vs. a Berserker, with the possible exception of the two Demilich fights in the game (where a Berserker can use Rage to block Imprisonment and a Kensai needs a spell).
Keep in mind that you may not see the finer distinctions if you play a low-difficulty game, particularly if it's unmodded. Doesn't mean the choice isn't objectively better still, you just don't realize it as directly as you would in a high-difficulty environment. It may not matter if you do 1000 or 10000 damage if the enemy only has 100hp, but 1000 is still < 10000. BG is a highly diverse game, given the plethora of mods available. If your particular setup makes the fine print irrelevant, that's fine, and you should always choose according to your own circumstances - just keep in mind that you can't take your particular position as an absolute, because the next guy over has a completely different setup with completely different needs and variables; they may just have those 100.000hp mobs, and suddenly it all matters a lot! That's what the baseline is for, and everyone can make their own, informed decisions from there.