I like classes that are good in melee. First because I just like that style, and second because it's nice having a sturdy main since he's the only one in the party you can't just resurrect.
I love ranger but I never beet the game with them cuz I become fallin and then get pissed. I don't like being a goody goody I want an evil ranger like one that fallows auril or something.
This is one of the things that annoy me about BG1. "Okay, gonna put together an evil party. So my choices of front liners are Fighter, Fighter, annnnnnnd Fighter. Cool."
Apparently, if you're evil you lack the necessary skills to hide in the bushes and shoot a bow at the same time. Who knew?
Monty. But he's more of a backstabber than a ranged fighter. I do agree with you that evil lacks a real ranged fighter.
Mages are my favorites! Conjurers are really cool too, but if the party has no bard or support mage, identification becomes a pain in the ass.
I don't have much love for sorcerors though. They would be more powerful, but it's more like powergaming to me. How is the sorceror supposed to know which spells to pick? I know what the game will throw at me, the character doesn't.
With a mage I can get all the spells available into my spellbook (and I always try that). The feeling of acomplishment that I get when seeing a fully filled right page in the mage book is just too good
I love ranger but I never beet the game with them cuz I become fallin and then get pissed. I don't like being a goody goody I want an evil ranger like one that fallows auril or something.
This is one of the things that annoy me about BG1. "Okay, gonna put together an evil party. So my choices of front liners are Fighter, Fighter, annnnnnnd Fighter. Cool."
Apparently, if you're evil you lack the necessary skills to hide in the bushes and shoot a bow at the same time. Who knew?
It's because when you are evil you can't resist the temptation to say "Mwahahaha!" and it gives away your position.
male human fighter. when your fighter is usually your go-to damage dealer, you want it done right & most of the fighters/paladins/rangers are flawed in some way
I love sorcerer because of its versatility. Also, sorcerer can learn powerful spell before the mage cuz the mage needs to have access to the scroll physically first. For the sorcerer, the spell just comes in a revelation.
The first time I layed my hands on BG, I rolled a Fighter. And when BG2 came, I rolled a Barbarian. I've always rolled those two classes. I'm a melee fighter in heart and soul. I dont mind other classes in the group. But I fight up close.
In BG2, I am drawn to the paladin who is locked in an inner struggle against her innate nature as a child of murder, who does lawful good with a certain grittiness, and who thinks Ajantis and Keldorn are a bit full of themselves.
In the context of BG1, from a role-playing perspective, given your origins in Candlekeep, a mage or thief seem to be the most plausible backgrounds for your character, with bard, fighter and cleric being other possibilities; Candlekeep doesn't really seem to be the kind of place a paladin, barbarian, or berserker would hail from, let alone a ranger or druid: how do you get to be a hero-protector who roams the wilderness or priest of nature if you've never left the cloister you were raised in from early childhood?
My favourite class is thief (a chaotic neutral one). I just like being hooded, silent and greedy bastard, who goes invisible whenever he wants and do whatever he wants :P But I usualy try not to hurt/kill innocent.
Pally for me and nothing but the pally so help me "insert god name here". One thing i got fed up with in BG2 was the abundance of lvl/stat draining critters so i always pick the undead hunter pally kit.
I rarely play anything else but when i do i like to play rangers 2nd and if the mood strikes me thief 3rd.
Fighter - Stoopid Mage - I put on my robe and wizard hat Thief - Emo Cleric - My god is better than your god Bard - Behold the power of my lute Druid - I devote my life to potplants Ranger - Drizzt clone Monk - I watch too much anime
I would so resent that... if it wasn't that one of my players, who used to always play a human paladin, switched to drow ranger (kinda) after I lent him my Drizzt books. Oh, yeah... and the monk watches too much anime, and pretty much admitted that's why he choose that class (actually, he's a Monk|Sorcerer... because DragonBall, I guess).
I've never finished a game with a single class PC. I've started several to experiment with various classes, but I never really liked not having the versatility that multi-classing can provide. However, clerics have been my favorite NPCs for a long time. I usually play with a party of 1-3 clerics, plus my PC depending on how many characters I have in my party. Playing a game without at least one cleric seems incomplete.
Apparently, if you're evil you lack the necessary skills to hide in the bushes and shoot a bow at the same time. Who knew?
It's because when you are evil you can't resist the temptation to say "Mwahahaha!" and it gives away your position.
And then there's that whole problem of having to take your enemies back to your elaborate compound and explaining in detail your ingenious plan to take over the world before you try to kill them by leaving them unsupervised in a slow and easy to escape execution mechanism.
I love me my versatility too much to go pure class normally, but the Blade is awesome, melee, magic, and a little bit of sneakiness. It's almost a multiclass in itself.
Of course I'd like it better if I could multiclass Bard/X...
I pretty much always play as a ranger as I really enjoy having access to different approaches in and out of combat, and also the concept as a whole is for some reason really appealing to me. It is however a shame that the ranger's spell selection is rather obsolete, especially considering when they become available.
Difficult forum question. If you asked me at lunch time, I might answer differently than over morning coffee. Such is the nature of CHARNAME's fickle fancies!
Comments
But, I was more talking about the lack of fighter derivatives on the evil side. It's one of the reasons I'm looking forward to Dorn in BG:EE.
I get what you mean there. Fighter derivatives of course are a bit lacking because Paladins and Rangers both have to be Good-aligned...
UNTIL NOW.
*Dun, dun, DUUUUUN!*
I don't have much love for sorcerors though. They would be more powerful, but it's more like powergaming to me. How is the sorceror supposed to know which spells to pick? I know what the game will throw at me, the character doesn't.
With a mage I can get all the spells available into my spellbook (and I always try that). The feeling of acomplishment that I get when seeing a fully filled right page in the mage book is just too good
-has preset spells
-can turn undead
-excels at being an enchanter, healer, and necromancer
I'd say the only weakness a cleric has is upfront fighting ability, but these three points make up for it in my opinion.
Or, as mlnevese said, multi-class with a fighter to remedy this.
YOU ARE NOT PREPARED!
I've always rolled those two classes. I'm a melee fighter in heart and soul. I dont mind other classes in the group. But I fight up close.
In the context of BG1, from a role-playing perspective, given your origins in Candlekeep, a mage or thief seem to be the most plausible backgrounds for your character, with bard, fighter and cleric being other possibilities; Candlekeep doesn't really seem to be the kind of place a paladin, barbarian, or berserker would hail from, let alone a ranger or druid: how do you get to be a hero-protector who roams the wilderness or priest of nature if you've never left the cloister you were raised in from early childhood?
But I usualy try not to hurt/kill innocent.
For dual class Kensai / Mage or Swashbuckler / Mage.
Pure mages are too weak and squishy.
I rarely play anything else but when i do i like to play rangers 2nd and if the mood strikes me thief 3rd.
2. Druid
3. Bard
4. Paladin
5. Ranger
6.Cleric
7. Thief
8. Fighter
9. Monk
Of course I'd like it better if I could multiclass Bard/X...