Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Musings about Classes & Playstyles [Newbie Perspective]

Hey!

So, I've recently started Baldur's Gate 2 for the first time (importing my character from Baldur's Gate 1) and I'm still kinda unsatisfied with my choice of character. He is a human Paladin, not at all very interesting to roleplay, and I find myself thinking a lot about how many different characters I could've made.

After a bit of research on classes, races, multiclassing, dual-classing (dual-classing sounds like a lot of hard work, plus the downtime between classes seems awful long) etc, I'm still unsure how "viable" some of these classes are according to my own playstyle. Roleplaying should take priority over 'mechanical' thinking.

For instance, I read a lot about how ungodly powerful mages can be - and yeah, I had a lot of fun with both Neera and Xan -, but it seems like mages are not very reliable in a dungeon or a long series of fights as the number of spells are very limited even after attaining higher levels, meaning I'd have to set up camp and rest after almost every fight OR have my PC mage character just sit in the back for the most part (which is what I did with Neera and Xan unless it was a major fight) and let the brawlers take care of business. This doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun if your character, the hero or anti-hero, is a mage. The Paladin felt like a gimped fighter - with poor roleplaying choices on top of that -, but at least he is active in the fore front and doesn't requite a lot of sleep to keep going between minor fights and/or an entire dungeon, assuming it's not a multi-level structure like Durlag's.

Fighter/mages on the other hand seem a lot more reliable assuming you have a second mage for offensive spells like fireball etc, and then have the vast majority of your F/M's spells focused on self buffs like Shield, Blur, Mirror Image, Ghost armor etc. Most of these spells last a long enough time to be useful in a series of fights, and I did a test character in Baldur's Gate 2 to see it for myself. To put it mildly, I was shocked at how easy it was for me to push the Fighter/Mage AC all the way to -5 without wearing any armor. This is nuts. Combined with the elf racial bonus to longswords - not to mention the resistance to charm and sleep -, and my test F/M character was already WAY AHEAD of my Paladin. Much better AC, better Thac0, better versatility, a much more interesting character overall.

A pure mage - or any other specialist mage for that matter - benefits from more spells and faster levelling, sure, but how do you deal with the limited amount of spells? You need both defensive and offensive spells seeing as melee is not a viable choice. Thac0 is just awful and weapon skills are lacking. I imagine these people who say mages/sorcerers are OP don't really mind resting after every 1-2 fights, but I don't like "over resting" as it feels wrong and the roleplayer in me can't see how a group of people would choose to sleep in a dark, damp dungeon unless it was absolutely necessary. What is even more aggravating is that it feels "gamey" and mechanical to quicksave / rest numerous times in the course of a quest. Mages are powerful yet dependant on NPCs to do their fighting 80-90% of the time, assuming you don't want to waste your spells on every engagement and just sit back.


Fighter/Mage/Thief is an odd choice of character, imho. From what I've researched, F/M/T is a versatile, powerful multiclass early on, but falls short in the mid to long run. It takes too long to have a decent amount of spells to cast, meaning you won't be a very good mage for most of the early and mid content. You miss on the better upper level spells, too. Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it really is, but to me F/M/T is not a very good choice of character.

And then we come to brawlers. A melee focused character like a pure fighter is a very simple class yet extremely reliable character. I don't know yet if you can push the AC to the same levels a Fighter/Mage can, but fighters are persistent tanks with great AC and the best thac0 in the game. Almost no downtime as you don't need to make camp just for the sake of replenishing spells. The dwarven defender looks to me the most interesting of the fighter kits, but I also liked the Berserker and the Barbarian kits. A dual-wielding dwarf with great resists must be a powerhouse in his own right. The only disadvantages I can think of is the dependancy on potions and/or mages & clerics/druids for buffs and magic protection AND the fact pure melee characters can be boring after a while. I know this because I'm bored to death of just point & clicking my way through brawls in Baldur's Gate 1. There's very little variety to it. The most fun I had in my party was controlling Xan to disable large groups of enemies with spells like Sleep and charm. Neera was mostly offensive spells like fireball, but I rarely used her for fear of wasting her spells too quickly.

What do you think? Am I missing something in my initial assessment of these classes? Do you have any suggestions? Should I just stick to the human Paladin until I'm finished with my first run of the series?

OrlonKronsteenBelgarathMTHJuliusBorisovAerakar
«13

Comments

  • tbone1tbone1 Member Posts: 1,996
    A straight paladin is weaker than one of the kits. The cavalier sacrifices missile weapons for some darn nice bonuses; a paladin is probably going to be a frontline anyway. The inquisitor gives up a lot of paladin abilities for abilities that make them the strongest foes of spellcaster in the game. Undead hunters are pretty specialized but there are times and foes when they are OP. I haven’t played a blackguard in a long time but I remember them as strong.

    That being said, I always see the straight paladin as stronger than a straight fighter or straight ranger. Those bonus skills (protection from evil, lay on hands) are useful. Detect evil can be damn handy on your first playthrough. The cleric spells you get starting at level 9, while not gamebreakers, are useful. (Never underestimate Bless.) I also like the paladin stronghold quests. Paladins and their kits are probably the best fighters in the game, overall, so give them a chance.

    But then I’ve had a bad case of restartitis lately, so who am I to say?

    ThacoBellOrlonKronsteenAerakar
  • jsavingjsaving Member Posts: 1,068
    Volatile said:

    Hey!
    Fighter/Mage/Thief is an odd choice of character, imho. From what I've researched, F/M/T is a versatile, powerful multiclass early on, but falls short in the mid to long run. It takes too long to have a decent amount of spells to cast, meaning you won't be a very good mage for most of the early and mid content. You miss on the better upper level spells, too. Maybe I'm not seeing it for what it really is, but to me F/M/T is not a very good choice of character.

    I had the same impression at first glance but playing a FMT changed my mind completely. It might seem like FMT can't compare to M in terms of casting and you would be right about that. However, FT is among the strongest melee/utility classes in the game and adding mage provides a huge amount of extra survivability (stoneskin, mirror image, etc) as well as freeing up a fair number of thief points (because invisibility can substitute for your two stealth skills).

    OrlonKronsteenJuliusBorisov
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,211
    Mulitclasses are the most powerful way to play the game when measured across the whole saga. Only dual classes compete, and only then when it comes end game power. F/M/T trade off the highest levels of proficiencies and spells for insane utility. Top level spells are entirely unnecessary. Anything past level 5 spells is gravy honestly. Heck, my favorite class to play (and the strongest single class) is a Bard. The sheer versatility and different ways that you can tackle any problem makes the versatility classes better than the specialist ones.
    You don't really need straight up damaging spells either. Disablers and buffs (for me at least) are far more effective.

  • VolatileVolatile Member Posts: 78
    What really blows my mind away is how insanely better a Fighter/Mage is - apparently, as far as I can tell - to a regular brawler class like a Fighter or Paladin. I made a "quick test" Fighter/Mage character in BG2EE (and thus no bonuses from the tomes in BG1EE, no fancy gear, no amulets, nothing) and at level F 6/M 6 he was ABSURDLY better than my level 8 Paladin. I gave the F/M a 19 DEX and 18 int. With a Shield spell up, he was already at AC 0. Add in Blur, Mirror Image, Ghost armor and his AC is better than ANYTHING I have ever seen throughout Baldur's Gate 1. And this is with no gear!! Insane.

    I am convinced a Fighter / Mage can eat ANY of the fighter classes/kits for breakfast any day. Insane armor class, regular fighter thac0, a few offensive spells and debuffs to boot. Nuts.

    The more I think of it, the more I feel like starting over from scratch.

    semiticgoddess
  • OrlonKronsteenOrlonKronsteen Member Posts: 865
    Looking at all the classes are there any that you haven't ruled out (e.g. mages) that really intrigue you from a roleplaying perspective? Maybe the fighter/mage multi does? What about the flavour of the paladin kits? Or a stealthy ranger (stalker)? Another thing to consider is which NPCs you really like, and how they might support/supplement the abilities of potential charnames.

  • UnderstandMouseMagicUnderstandMouseMagic Member Posts: 2,147
    If you are playing a 6 man party, how many spells do you need in a fight?
    Add in wands and items, not quite seeing why you have to rest so much that mages feel a bit inadequate.
    The higher level spells can wipe out whole groups, so how many do you need?

    You mention playing with Xan, and you used 1 spell to disable the whole group. If your party is working efficiently, then 1 or 2 of those disabling spells is all you will use in most fights. Inbetween you use a sling or a dagger, or summon something to fight for you (from the mage point of view).
    And wands, never forget wands.

    (Mind you, I always use Edwin so TBH, me talking about having more than enough spells is a bit cheeky)

    tbone1ThacoBellVolatile
  • VolatileVolatile Member Posts: 78
    I'm leaning towards Fighter/Mage (elf for the resists and longsword bonus to thac0) as the triple multiclass F/M/T seems too restrictive, specially with a full party. I'm really impressed at how good a Fighter/Mage can be as both mage and melee/tank (at least in the very first dungeon in BG2). The F/M was clearing rooms by himself. It was fun.

    If I make a Fighter/Mage for the long run (Throne of Bhaal), will I still reach the level cap - I believe it's F 24 / M 20 - with a party of six or should I scale down on the party size?

    This is how I see it so far:

    Elf vs Half-Elf: better dexterity, better resists, better thac0 for my choice of weapon (longswords).

    F/M vs F/M/T: A Fighter/Mage can theoretically reach the full potential of both classes, assuming there's enough experience in one playthrough for a full party. I rarely ever use backstabbing anyway, so Find Traps and Open Locks should cover my basic needs for a thief. I don't think it's worth sacrificing my character's progression (by making a F/M/T triple class) just for these two thief skills.

    The Dwarven Defender sounds really cool still. Usually, when I imagine an unstoppable force in a D&D setting, a dwarf duel-wielding hammers - or axes - come to mind rather than a Conan-style barbarian in loincloth. It's a matter of personal taste, tho. Dwarves are awesome. However, after playing a pure melee character for so long, I'm afraid the Dwarven Defender won't be a much different experience: maybe have an NPC cleric / druid buff him if it's a tough fight; maybe hit the defensive stance for the same reason as before; left-click the enemy once and watch the fight without much further input. With a Fighter/Mage, I feel like there's so much more versatility and improvising. The more spells a F/M has, the more diversified his tactics for each engagement can be.

    I don't mind replaying Baldur's Gate 1 EE one bit. In fact, now that I actually understand how most of the lower spells / potions / cleric buffs / disabilities work, the better I can handle the challenge ahead. Plus I get to do all the quests in Baldur's Gate city that I had to pass because it felt weird to do unlawful quests with a Paladin.

    tbone1BelgarathMTH
  • BelgarathMTHBelgarathMTH Member Posts: 5,644
    ThacoBell said:

    An Inquisitor Paladin would mulch the F/M very easily.

    Yes, the trouble with the Fighter-Mage is that Dispel Magic is his kryptonite, rendering him helpless in seconds. Not many enemies cast it in the vanilla game, though. But with SCS, Dispel Magic would become more of a problem.

    Also, his spell slots are necessarily filled with defensive spells and buffs at all times, creating a need for a dedicated mage to handle Breach and Lower Resistance, which become critical spells in BG2 against mages and dragons. One also needs a cleric or druid to cast Chaotic Commands, because the Fighter-Mage is vulnerable to mind-affecting spells.

    Volatiledunbar
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,211
    A F/M will never reach full potential in either class. Multiclass fighters can only specialize rather than reach grandmastery in weapons. And the split levels will result in significantly lower spell slots. Multiclasses are hybrids and their strength comes from the greater range of options they can choose from.

    Volatile
  • VolatileVolatile Member Posts: 78
    ThacoBell said:

    A F/M will never reach full potential in either class. Multiclass fighters can only specialize rather than reach grandmastery in weapons. And the split levels will result in significantly lower spell slots. Multiclasses are hybrids and their strength comes from the greater range of options they can choose from.

    Grandmastery is nice, but can you honestly say it's comparable to the advantages of ANY other class? Being able to cast defensive, offensive and utility spells or fiddling with locks / traps, raging into battle, buffing an entire party with your singing, assuming a defensive stance that turns you into a brickwall, etc are all much more advantageous. A pure fighter is just not up to par.

    Reaching level 24 as a Fighter means you're guaranteed the best possible saving throws, thac0 and a fair amount of weapon proficiency points. You don't miss out on much by giving up on the next 16 levels. So yeah, Grandmastery is pretty much the only thing you'll miss. An Improved Haste spell alone can compensate for it.

    For the Mage part, you would stop levelling at 20. Again, you're given the best possible bonuses, and you're missing out on 11 levels that would give you an additional 7 - yes, only seven more - spells. A pure mage can cast a couple more level 9th spells per day, but have a much lower HP pool, horrible thac0, and worse saving throws.

    To sum it up: a Fighter/Mage is giving up Grandmastery for the ability to cast spells; a Fighter/Mage is giving up 2-3 additional level 9th spells for an impressive thac0, great saving throws, and more Hit Points. The game is extremely partial to multiclasses, methinks.

    semiticgoddess
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,211
    You also aren't guaranteed the "best" saving throws as a fighter. FIghters, thieves, and mages all have different saves. One of the big advantages of multis is that you get the best saves of all the included classes. Paladins also have some of the best saves period across the board. They make some of the best tanks because of this. Also, grandmastery does make a big difference when the entire point of your class is to smack things upside the head.

    tbone1semiticgoddessJuliusBorisovAerakar
  • VolatileVolatile Member Posts: 78
    @Neverused Interesting! What would you say is best to counter the linear progression past level 9: a smaller party of 3-4 or going solo for some/most of the content? Maybe I can do BG1 solo - or at least a big chunk of it -, but BG2 is very much new to me, so the risk is too great.

  • NeverusedNeverused Member Posts: 785
    I actually prefer BG1 solo: there's enough consumables to basically guarantee a successful no-reload run solo, whereas that's not as true for a large party. There's also a lot more wilderness wandering with a party, so I'm slightly biased against it. :tongue:

    Smaller parties can help with experience, but not as much as you might think. A lot of the quest experience is granted like "45,500 experience per character," so it doesn't hurt to have multiple characters then. With a 6-man that skipped 3 stronghold quests, I reached 1.5 million exp by Chapter 4 of BG2.

    If this is your first time playing through, I'd definitely recommend a full 6-man party, since as fun as mechanics are, the NPCs were what made BG2 shine in the first place. My previous post was simply that multiclasses are incredibly strong in both the early and lategame, but they're comparatively weaker through the middlegame. Not that they're bad, or not even still ahead of pure-classes... But they're not ahead as much during this time rather than the others.

    Unless you're a F/D multi. That 6m experience necessary to be really useful kinda sucks. :tongue:

    tbone1
  • jsavingjsaving Member Posts: 1,068
    Volatile said:

    F/M vs F/M/T: A Fighter/Mage can theoretically reach the full potential of both classes, assuming there's enough experience in one playthrough for a full party. I rarely ever use backstabbing anyway, so Find Traps and Open Locks should cover my basic needs for a thief. I don't think it's worth sacrificing my character's progression (by making a F/M/T triple class) just for these two thief skills.

    Thief gives you far, far more than two thief skills. His HLA traps are among the strongest weapons available to any class and his UAI ability gives you a much better set of usable equipment than you'd otherwise have. At lower levels, pickpocket gives you whatever items you like from the Copper Coronet without slowing your march toward 15K gold. And at mid levels, perhaps your gameplay style doesn't mesh well with extensive scouting followed by a selective backstab, but if you just cast invisibility on yourself and charge with the rest of your party, you can still get backstab damage on the first attack which is often enough to defeat the target.

    Besides, in almost no sense can FM reach the full potential of the mage class. Sure, an FM can eventually cast his first 9th level spell toward the end of Throne of Bhaal, but his damage-per-spell will be much lower than a singleclass mage and in fact will have been substantially lower than a singleclass mage from the moment BG2 begins. The good news is that FMs aren't generally casting the spells a pure mage would use, but are instead mainly using buffs like stoneskin that don't depend on caster level. Basically, you should think about FMs (and FMTs for that matter) as being nigh-invulnerable fighter kits rather than as substitutes for a pure mage. If you do that, and then play them that way, you'll likely find them to be among the strongest choices in the game.

    ThacoBellGusindaVolatileMirandel
  • ElendarElendar Member Posts: 831
    Mages are kings.. Especially when they can use Wish to restore their spells. Sorcerers are particularly versatile if you know which spells you need if you're doing single class and they don't lose any spells due to specialization.

    Personally I prefer the dual class over the multi for fighter / mages... You get enough from the Fighter class you make you able to deal damage with weapons and have a lot of hit points while getting access to high level spells earlier and more slots than the multiclass can.

    I know it seems like a pain to have that downtime, but if you do it just right, it really isn't all that bad..

    You can start out as a Berserker, a ridiculously overpowered Fighter kit with an enrage that gives immunities to things like fear and hold.. And play through all of Baldur's Gate 1 like this where fighters tend to be stronger than mages anyways, since mages don't really outshine other classes until they reach godlike levels.

    Then during SoD, if you bother to play this expansion, you can dual to mage at level 9, then play through most of SoD as a decent enough mage.. And reach level 10 mage to complete the dual cast at the SoD xp cap and play the entirety of BG2 as a Berserker/Mage.

    Or if you skip BG1 and/or SoD you can simply make a Berserker at the start of the game and either dual class immediately (at level 7) and quickly gain enough xp to get to level 8 mage, or again just wait til level 9 for that extra prof point (Grandmastery) and an extra half-attack before dualing and easily get enough xp to get to 10 (especially if you wait before picking up many party members and use all the gold you can to buy and scribe scrolls for XP).

    Alternatively, you can also just dual at level 7 in BG1 and reach level 8 in mage before completing BG1 and play through SoD as a Berserker/Mage. Or you could play through BG1 and SoD as a Berserker and then dual at the beginning of BG2.


    Dual-classing isn't all that bad downtime wise, unless you go with ridiculously high levels for your first class.

  • ReadingRamboReadingRambo Member Posts: 598
    edited October 2017
    Fighter/mage/thief is the most fun for me. He/She gets access to nice spells that help keep him alive while in combat and while clearing traps and scouting. I hate relying on NPC thieves to do all the necessary trapspringing. I like to have freedom in choosing my NPCs, and not have to drag a NPC thief wherever I go.

    The Blade is also a very fun class that I highly recommend as well.

    AerakarThacoBell
  • VolatileVolatile Member Posts: 78
    jsaving said:

    Basically, you should think about FMs (and FMTs for that matter) as being nigh-invulnerable fighter kits rather than as substitutes for a pure mage. If you do that, and then play them that way, you'll likely find them to be among the strongest choices in the game.

    Exactly! It's like I said: the Fighter/Mage was clearing rooms on his own as a "fighter", and doing it much faster and more effectively than Minsc or my previous character (Paladin). The F/M had no bracers or robes and the AC was already MUCH better than anything I've seen before.

  • inkblowoutinkblowout Member Posts: 49
    Like yourself I'm playing baldur's gate 2 for the first time after completing BG1. And guess what? I'm a paladin (basic) just like you are at the moment. And I'm currently loving it in BG2 and I'll tell you why.

    Paladins in Baldur's Gate with the leveling from 1 to 9 iirc doesn't offer you much really. But in BG2 that changes greatly, eventually you will be given cleric spells that you can cast and will help you better as a frontline fighter. And that's what your paladin should be (a frontline warrior or tank) with a two handed sword is great. Not to mention if you are using 2 handed swords, you'll have a chance to wield Carsomyr. And Carsomyr is a weapon of destruction which could be upgraded to a 6+ weapon in ToB which is crazy. (And only paladins can wield Carsomyr.)

    Also the paladin stronghold quests are well done and very rewarding, and I very well enjoyed it. I think you should give it a shot in BG2, because paladins are a ton better than in BG1 by far.

    JuliusBorisovtbone1
  • KhyronKhyron Member Posts: 553
    Well to be honest, paladins do rule.. for several reasons, Carsomyr being the top one.

    Lay on hands is great, bless is good to have, fear protections and the ever lovely Armor of Faith (though it becomes more of a novelty once you get HLA)..

    F/M might have all the bells and whistles, but when you get hit by silences, dispells and all the other nasties out there, you can depend on a paladin to get the job done without too much fuss.

    Get'im Carsomyr, some decent plate, use the right buffs, summon celestials to heal and buff him even more, and let loose that crazy zealot hellbent on bringing "democracy and freedom" Law to every corner the world of Faerûn.. by means of liberally dispensing buttkicks of justice, as his less than clever friend would say.

    ThacoBellJuliusBorisovprofanitywarning
  • DevardKrownDevardKrown Member Posts: 421
    edited October 2017
    ye with picking a pure paladin you practically gimped yourself of some sweet bonuses , Cavalier and Inquisitor being the top notch ones. once in BG2 you can get carsomyr+5 quite "early" it has 50% magic resistance and making it very doable to reach 100% with other gear,
    while dispelling magic on every hit, nothing more shocking for a mage then his spells do nothing and you gently strip him of his protections hit by hit.

    mages in this game are just so godly for the almost no restrictions on rests. as you already said you could rest every second fight and end the game with 10000 days played, the fact that the exp in the end caps so high gives not much of a drawback to throw in thief or fighter beforehand in dual-classes , specially if you start at BG2.

    what you totally seem to have ignored by now is the Cleric, they got the second best Thac0 progression in game and aside the no bladed weapon restriction can almost do all a fighter can.

    simple Dualclasses like a lvl 2Fighter/Cleric can become a powerhouse by having like no dualing time. (but still getting grandmastery+dual weapon fighting boosting their good cleric fighting powers even more)

    or the most crazy spell slinger of them all the Cleric/Mage Multi! (go gnome for illusionist/cleric for even more spells!) having the mage spell list and cleric spell list in one character is just insane , once you get the robes of vecna and a few other mage specific goodies all your spells will come with no cast time what so ever.. and you have tons of them, the mage provides the armor spells equal to plate armor and some stoneskins , the cleric throws in huge group buffs and protections , and all mage spells you got left can be used for devastation. if you ever decide to stop casting you still can stand in the second line using a sling/throwing hammer with a pretty decent chance to hit.

    tbone1JuliusBorisovVolatileAerakar
  • tbone1tbone1 Member Posts: 1,996
    I will back up @DevardKrown on clerics. The best weapons in the game tend to be blunt. Think of the best hammer, best mace, and best flail. Oh, and staves are pretty good, too. Plus, they tend to have the best saving throws thanks to all that divine favor business.

    ThacoBell
  • ValciValci Member Posts: 35
    edited October 2017
    Personally I favour single classes over multi classes... And to be honest I think the game is balanced best for them. You are neither underpowered nor overpowered at any point of the game (except for mages maybe but that's sort of by design)... As someone said before, with multi classes you have a large chunk of the game where you are behind in levels just so you can be OP at the very end of ToB... Not worth it for me but then I prefer balanced characters that I can take from LVL 1 all the way through the saga... Personally whenever I want some casting and fighting thrown in together i just play a blade (bard kit)...

  • unavailableunavailable Member Posts: 265
    I think of it like batman and robin: they're a pretty good crime fighting duo, but it is the casters (Alfred the butler and Lucius) who elevates them from crime fighters to super heroes. I think mages are great. Later on your pure class mages will be better than any fighter with the right spell triggers and contingencies

  • SkatanSkatan Member, Moderator Posts: 5,343
    I'm surprised by the lack of love for SC fighters. To me, they are usually better than many other combos of races and classes. Not that long ago I played a dwarf F/C which is probably the tankiest build there is; the best saves possible and access to AoF, DoE, Hardiness etc made him not even need most of the buffs provided by his cleric levels, but fully buffed up he was unstoppable.

    But that's not the point here, which is that even if I gave my CHARNAME most of the best items, Korgan being SC berserker was just as good. Fighters get enough AC, most of the time they are better than F/Ms since they start at AC0 instead of at AC5, and with +2 from ring, +1 from helmet, +X from dex, +2-3 from shield, +3-4 from belt vs X, +5 vs piercing on boots, +2 from drizzt's scimi, +1 from cloak, +1 from ring, etc etc... point being, a fighter is always ready for combat without fancy magics and with enough AC through most of BG1/SoD/BG2 to require crits to be hit. Only in ToB do you even have to bother about being hit but then you will start to get enough hardiness HLA's to browse through anyways. Being a berzerker you get the single most versatile and strongest kit buff there is. I'd argue 'berzerk' is ridiculously strong, to the point of making the cleric levels of a F/C almost redundant since leveling as a SC berzerker makes you as good without buffs as a F/C gets after buffing (almost.. ).

    I know most ppl prefer F/Ms to F/Cs, but to me, F/Cs has the best choice of class available; dwarves. Dwarfes +5 to saves mean you get into negative saves already in BG1. This makes you nigh unstoppable since no enemy can really stop you. In Bg2 it takes longer since it's harder to get the best items, so you need some items to help you as a pure fighter; a sword that gives you mirror image, a ring with improved haste, a gem for true seeing, shield of harmony for mental defence, etc etc.

    I'm not sure I am making sense here, but my point is that leveling as a sc fighter is just pure awesomeness. I never play it myself since I think it's too boring (click attack, go to sleep), but compairing Korgan to Keldorn, I'd take Korgan 7 times out of 10, and IMHO inquisitors is the only Paladin that rivals berserkers or F/Cs (except in IWD where the UD is king, but I am talking BG here).

    F/Ms are amazing ofc (F/I gnomes are even better since they get +saves and +spell slots), but they are not better than F/C or berserker dwarves or inquisitors IMHO. Unless you play minimal party and/or solo of course, that changes everything.

    JuliusBorisovVolatileAerakar
  • DevardKrownDevardKrown Member Posts: 421
    Fighters get enough AC, most of the time they are better than F/Ms since they start at AC0 instead of at AC5

    nobody says your F/M cant wear that full plate armor , i actually do until i get to lvl 3 spells and can use Ghost Armor..and later Spirit armor, treating that F/M as a slower progressing fighter who takes utility spells so the real mages can load up more Hurt in their daily package.

    as for BG1 you actually just one level below a SC fighter and 2 below a SC mage , losing out on a lvl 5 spell and a 1 Thac0 improvement. but for that you are worth 2 Group slots. and at the moment you get Stoneskin, Ghostarmor and Mirror image your plain old SC Fighter is left behind , they might have the same AC but the F/M can take a couple hits without losing actual life. and it gets even better the longer the game goes on.

    the F/M gets even better since SC Fighter stop really progressing after lvl13 aside Thac0 improvement...but that should do it for now.

    Don't get me wrong , i like me a good fighter, but almost every Multi class version is somewhat preferable.

    semiticgoddess
  • PantalionPantalion Member Posts: 2,137
    edited October 2017
    When you mage "right", a single spell can immediately and heavily tilt an encounter in your favour, and this generally does not include casting spells that cause damage, because that's the job of lowly peons (aka Fighters), and generally does include spells that involve saving throws and lots of people, hard saving throws and very nasty people, or the mage becoming lolimmune to everything nasty people can do - Polymorph Self: Mustard Jelly and Spell Immunity being the prime examples that simply trivialise some of the tougher encounters in the trilogy.

    While they can also make themselves into walking avatars of destruction when necessary, going nova is typically neither necessary or recommended for regular fights.

    Also, excluding keepering in kits, Gnomes are the true ubermensches, with Illusionist/Thief and Illusionist/Cleric being great "do it all" types and some of the strongest potential characters there are while offering a lot for you to do, in and out of combat.

    Edit: While I'm at it:

    Fighter multiclasses should probably never be compared to Mages, Mage/Cleric, or Mage/Thief, only to Fighters. You're definitely not going to make a Mage better or more versatile by adding "Fighter", you're making Fighters better and more versatile by adding Mage.

    F/M/T are best be compared to the Bard, with which they are best comparable, and strictly superior long term in every respect except magnitude and dispelling. They make amazing boss tanks, most regular enemies will not require them to be use their best buff spells in general combat, and long term buffs will still leave them with a huge advantage over Fighter classes without ever being really behind, especially since Wand access is a huge deal in BG.

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited October 2017
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

Sign In or Register to comment.