Never used a main class

Skatan

Hello all,

I've played the BG series (and to some extent, IWD as well), trying out a plethora of different builds, both legal and "illegal" combinations, thanks to tools like the eekeeper. I've poured in hundreds and hundreds of hours, but I haven't actually finished that many playthroughs since I often come up with new character builds I want to try out well before I finish my current run. I love the versatility of AD&D and the number of different ways the multitude of character builds can tackle the same situation. It's really a neverending love story between me and these games.

With that said, I have played a vanilla fighter. Ever.

The main classes like fighter, thief, paladin, cleric, mage and the multitude of MC/DC options gives you an almost undepletable number of choices, and out of all those choices; playing a CHARNAME vanilla fighter has just never even once occured to me. It just struck me yesterday when creating yet another character concept for a BG run. I've played CHARNAME clerics, mages, thieves and druids (druids the least), also bards and any other vanilla class, including the newer ones like sorcerer, monk etc.

So, to perhaps start up an interesting conversation in this topic: which of the main (perhaps mainly about the classical) classes (and races?) have you, yourself, never tried? If any, that is. But I guess I can't be the first seasoned played who has felt that one or more of the classes (and races) just doesn't appeal to me and my playstyle and just skipped it, maybe even subconsciously (hello Freud!?).

Cheers!
//Skat.

JuliusBorisov

I have never made my character a Monk.

Rasaad was the first time I tried a monk in action.

FinneousPJ

Do you mean as charname or at all?

Francois

I've tried pretty much every main class at least once but I never tried the Wizard Slayer kit. I really don't like monks, and I find their kicking animation silly.

Skatan

FinneousPJ said:

Do you mean as charname or at all?

I meant mainly for CHARNAME in BG, but it can be applied for IWD as well of course. I'll update the first post. Thanks for the comment.

Skatan

@Bengoshi: I'd really like to hear why you haven't created a CHARNAME monk? Personally, I haven't played all the kits thoroughly, but I have played vanilla monk through large portions of BG just to try it out on higher levels after reading about its ability to kick arse. It was fairly fun, but not my cup of tea.

@Francois: I'll admit wizard slayer doesn't appeal to me at all, and I have only tried one once in BG1. Didn't feel like taking him to BG2 either, hehe..

BelgarathMTH

I've never played a straight fighter either. The trouble with the fighter class in BG is the same as with cleric. The berserker kit has lots of bonuses and no drawbacks, so there is not a single reason I can see to choose a straight fighter over a berserker, just as there is no reason to choose an unkitted cleric. So I've played a berserker, but never a plain fighter.

Fighters really shine in third edition, though, with their bonus feats, and being the only class that can specialize in a weapon. I still haven't played one in NWN, though. I prefer to play a paladin or a barbarian when I'm in the mood for "see enemy, smash enemy, rinse and repeat" gameplay.

Something about straight fighters has just always seemed bland, generic, and boring to me. That's probably because the fighter character type dominates so much of fiction. I always want to be something different than just another standard Hollywood style action hero, preferably a hero with magical ability, or better yet, the mentor to the hero.

I think my fantasies about having magical powers goes back to my school days when I was bullied, and using fantasy as an escape, and as a way to have "revenge against the bullies". Every time I threw a fireball at a ogre, the ogre was a stand-in for some bully that was bugging me in real life.

So, I'd say I tend to not like playing fighters because that character type reminds me of all the sports jocks I never got along with.

Also, I've never played a thief, although I wouldn't want to have a party without one. I always take Imoen in BG, Tomi Undergallows in the Neverwinter Nights OC, and Dorna in Shadows of Undrentide. But I'm so clumsy and slow in real life, I just can't imagine myself having that skill set. I like to self-insert in my computer games, and I am completely disconnected with dexterity-based skills and thieving skills. I could just never identify with a character who does that job. It'd be like being a bomb-disarming specialist.

deltago

Monk.

Mostly due to it being unable to use all the cool weapons and armours you come across. Well, yoi can use them, but fighting with your fists is what the monk, and most of their combat abilities revolve around.

They seem incomplete without their own armour and equipable weapons that I dont gravitate towards them at all.

AHF

Monks are fun with their epic magic resistance by the end of the game. With a little prep and equipment selection, they can walk in almost magic immune and just beat people down. They aren't my favorite class to play primarily due to their weakness in early game but they are definitely worth a try for people who are interested. Personally, I prefer the default monk to either of the kitted versions so I wouldn't judge the class solely by Rasaad.

I guess one that I haven't done is a pure druid. I've done them in multiclass but not pure. They have a few very, very good spells but way too many that just aren't that interesting for me and since you get good combat ability by going multi with a good selection of 7th level spells (and fast early progression) I've not felt the need to go pure. Perhaps Cernd has poisoned the well for me a bit on that since he has felt like a tag-along rather than a key member of the team when I've used him.

Nimran

I never used barbarians. I've always thought that they were weird class to add to the game, since berserkers were also added.

Dragonspear

Classes I've never played and beaten the game with in some form (single, dual or multi) as a PC.

Druid (any), Cleric (any), Mage (Although I start plenty of invokers), Thief (Any, gonna work on my assassin I promise), Barbarian, Monk, Sorc (One day my dragon disciple will rise).

So I guess it would actually be easier to narrow it down by classes I have beaten the game with:
Fighter (Wizard Slayer)
Paladin (Cavalier)
Ranger (Stalker, and come close a couple times with Archer)
Bard (Blade)

Francois

BelgarathMTH said:

The berserker kit has lots of bonuses and no drawbacks, so there is not a single reason I can see to choose a straight fighter over a berserker

The advantage of vanilla is that you can get grand mastery in both ranged and melee weapons. The Archer ranger kit is great, but it lacks versatility. If you want an archer that can also get in serious melee, then vanilla fighter would be good. Berzerkers can use throwing axe and hammers, but bows have more attacks per round, missile bonus stacks with weapon and they have a wide range of damage types.

abacus

Monks and Druids...

Not sure why, but neither holds any appeal to me.

JuliusBorisov

Skatan said:

@Bengoshi: I'd really like to hear why you haven't created a CHARNAME monk? Personally, I haven't played all the kits thoroughly, but I have played vanilla monk through large portions of BG just to try it out on higher levels after reading about its ability to kick arse. It was fairly fun, but not my cup of tea.

Maybe it is because the style of "see an enemy - run to it - hack it" is not my favourite. The second reason is like items a lot and like to use them, like to swap weapons with different additional abilities, like to use different strategies while dealing with enemies. And a monk is very restricted in variety. His arsenal is limited, to me.

For example, even a solo wizard slayer, restricted in magical items, still constantly should change his weapons: a bow with arrows of dispelling, a crossbow with bolts of electricity, a Stupifier mace while dealing with a blacktalon elite, Arbane's Sword while dealing with ghasts, Lilarcor while dealing with myconids and so on and on. This creates a source of different strategies. And I like to think about new ways of defeating a tough enemy.

Dragonspear

@bengoshi

That prolly explains why your WS is better than mine. Mine's just a dwarf running around dwing AotU and CF.

JuliusBorisov

Dragonspear said:

@bengoshi

That prolly explains why your WS is better than mine. Mine's just a dwarf running around dwing AotU and CF.

I trully advice to read about @Blackraven 's attempts with Thani the Wizard Slayer - it will give a lot of insightful information of how one should play this kit.

Start from here: https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/comment/573643/#Comment_573643

Dragonspear

To be fair, my WS has a party behind her. But I'll read that thread after work tomorrow

Dragonspear

Ahhh and you both use SCS. I haven't brought myself to that yet

bob_veng

vanilla fighter that is good in both ranged and melee is strong in bg:ee

other vanilla classes suck. thief is ok early-game but gets lame compared to it's kits soon. ranger is better than beastmaster.

OlvynChuru

I pretty much never use a wizard slayer. I think I'd like the class more if it was actually much better at slaying wizards than the other kinds of fighters.

SharGuidesMyHand

Francois said:

BelgarathMTH said:

The berserker kit has lots of bonuses and no drawbacks, so there is not a single reason I can see to choose a straight fighter over a berserker

The advantage of vanilla is that you can get grand mastery in both ranged and melee weapons. The Archer ranger kit is great, but it lacks versatility. If you want an archer that can also get in serious melee, then vanilla fighter would be good.

Agreed.

Jatrrr

This should go straight to unpopular openions, but i never really play mage and I will probably never play this class. Dunno why but through all types of games I feel strong dislike to arcane magic, probably because it is too OP. I prefere divine magic - clerics and seldom druids.
Idea of casting a swarm of Mmissiles, fireballs, horid wiltings or other dmg spells in fight, than sleeps and make it again never turned me on. I know ther is much more in mage, but this is only class I am not even curious about.

I was trying mage/thief by I was playing mostly like thief, and I never feel any real need of an arcane caster in my group.
To be honest my longest run was end of SoA years ago but I did almost all fights with no arcane magic.
It will hardly change, until i get seriously beated by ToB casting creatures I think.

First time I play pure fighter BGEE and it is fun.. but somehow too easy.
I always used rangers/paladins or multi fighter.