Sorry for the long quote, but Quartz has spoken the complete truth.
You can only see a difference between Paladin and Warrior until late game (when there is really a gap between XP threshold - at the beginning, it is only 500 xp /1000xp and so on), and IF you specialize further in a weapon specialization (with ****).
Otherwise, you miss many defense and healing spells, at the beginning (and during the whole BG1 in fact), when they are the most valuable assets to prevent your demise (and your party's).
Unless I am mistaken, defence and healing spells become available to Paladins and Rangers at around level 9 or so, hardly "early", when they are most needed, and frequently redundant (though redundancy isn't necessarily a bad thing) when put next to actual casters, who will probably be in your party anyway.
Meanwhile, their levelling rate is slower than a fighter, so they hit every milestone later.
Looking longer term, HLAs in BG2:EE for Fighters will top off at 21 HLAs, and since they can reach level 40 under the cap, rather than level 34, you're looking at an extra 18 HP plus Con for those 6 levels, in addition to typically having an HP, THAC0 and saves advantage in BG:EE as they're always reaching those levels earlier.
Coupled with ending up with better THAC0 (from Mastery), and easier access to dual classing if you decide you want to later down the line, there are reasons you might want to pick another class than "Fighter" for someone you want "fighting", but they ain't mechanical in my mind, they're thematic.
Some of the threads here over the last couple of months definitely piqued my interest in trying a Wizard Slayer, though. Never played one. This business of getting 10 hits in on the target and then the enemy wizard's spells fail sounds like it could be pretty badass. I just wonder around what level and with which weapons profs/weapons that starts to become a regular occurrence. (Sorry, I don't mean to start a tangent here, because there's several threads on this subject by now. Still, it intrigues me.)
I have played a wizard slayer throughout all of BG2 and ToB (never did it with Tutu for BG1, though), and they aren't *that* bad, though clearly not optimal. The important thing to note, is that as long as you hit the target, whether they have absolute immunity, stoneskin, or mirror image, you still add the spell failure.
The magic resist starts going up by 5% after level 19 for whatever reason, and you're actually allowed to equip the magic amulet Ellesime gives you at the end of SoA, so in the expansion, you can quite easily get to 100% magic resist. You can't wear bracers/guantlets, rings, most amulets, and belts, but you can wear magic boots and helmets (but not Ioun Stones). Losing the belt isn't that bad if you take most of strength upgrades (my half orc started with 19, got +1 for the Machine of Lum the Mad, +1 for Deck of Many things, and somehow got +3 from the Tear of Wrath in Hell, even though it's supposed to be +2) Still, the loss of guantlets and rings sucks, and you only really have one option for necklace.
Agree with @Pantalion, who stole a lot of my thunder. I'm not 'down' on any of the classes, but I did notice that, at the higher end of levels, Sarevok outshined the other fighter types. Grand Mastery is an awesome trait and it made Minsc obsolete during my TOB playthrough. Seriously, I dropped him from my party for the first time in all of CHARNAME's epic tale. Any extra attack is additional pain on the enemy, so I'm all for it.
I'm pretty set on my first playthrough being a Kensai, as I'm interested in playing this class without going the dual class route. I'm also very interested in the archer kit. Beyond that, maybe will try the Cavalier... Might do a dual class at some point, but I have to get over my aversion to level one playing after I do so... Major downer, even if though pays off in the end.
Looking longer term, HLAs in BG2:EE for Fighters will top off at 21 HLAs, and since they can reach level 40 under the cap, rather than level 34, you're looking at an extra 18 HP plus Con for those 6 levels, in addition to typically having an HP, THAC0 and saves advantage in BG:EE as they're always reaching those levels earlier.
Coupled with ending up with better THAC0 (from Mastery), and easier access to dual classing if you decide you want to later down the line, there are reasons you might want to pick another class than "Fighter" for someone you want "fighting", but they ain't mechanical in my mind, they're thematic.
I completly agree with you for BG2, that's why I get rid of Minsc as soon as Sarevok is available (hey you can get him to Chaotic good !).
But since in BG1, Fighter and Paladin can both gain access to level 8, this not a very big change.
xp 125 000 for a fighter and 161 000 for a paladin (if I am right).
1) Fighters advance in level a tad bit faster. 2) Paladins can use the Holy Avenger in BG2. Along with the right items, you can make them heavily resistant to magic and fire allowing you to throw them alone into combat and lob in spells from behind. 3) Fighters will end up with more attacks when all is said and done. 4) Fighters have no alignment or race restrictions and often multi / dual class better. 5) Paladins are good at having resistances and immunities (granted by protection from evil and kits powers). 6) Paladins generally have better saving throws, making them better for running in first (setting off traps and being the first targeted by spells). 7) If the XP cap for BG:EE is 161,000, paladins and fighters will both be able to reach level 8. If the cap for BG2:EE is 8,000,000, fighters will end with 6 more levels (and 6 more high level abilities). 8) Lay on Hands is good first aid since it's hard to disrupt (short casting time) and is usually already on the front line (since that is where paladins often are).
Personally, I'd roll with a paladin as my main and keep a fighter as my second since I'm a defensive player. The paladin's protections, abilities, and possible immunities are good at keeping him safe. If I wanted to be more aggressive or if I wanted a "lesser fighter" as my second (muliclass fighter, swashbuckler, etc.) then I might consider a fighter as my main.
Me personally? I tend to go with either the Kensai, the Archer, or the Inquisitor. That Dispel Magic ability is always helpful.
Inquisitor is better at mage slaying than Wizard Slayer. The sad truth.
Some of the threads here over the last couple of months definitely piqued my interest in trying a Wizard Slayer, though. Never played one. This business of getting 10 hits in on the target and then the enemy wizard's spells fail sounds like it could be pretty badass. I just wonder around what level and with which weapons profs/weapons that starts to become a regular occurrence. (Sorry, I don't mean to start a tangent here, because there's several threads on this subject by now. Still, it intrigues me.)
If you hit a mage 10 times, they aren't going to be alive anymore.
The important thing to note, is that as long as you hit the target, whether they have absolute immunity, stoneskin, or mirror image, you still add the spell failure.
Wait what? I've had people tell me the exact opposite. Such an ability would actually make them useful.
Okay, I'm liking the paladin at this point. They make a great protagonist. now the debate continues...for BGEE...which kit is best??
All of them are great, just depends on what you want to do. Regular Paladin kit if you don't want to sacrifice anything. Undead Hunter if you think you will have trouble with, like, Ghasts for instance; you never have to worry about level drain in Baldur's Gate 1 because there weren't level draining creatures. If you ask me, Undead Hunter is probably the least useful for BG1. Cavalier is badass, as is Inquisitor but with the latter you must ask yourself if the abilities are worth the penalties. Inquisitors make mages very very sad, so that's worth noting.
If you choose Cavalier, make sure to put proficiency points in axes so that you can use Throwing Axes, thus cheating their "only melee weapons!" rule.
Me personally? I tend to go with either the Kensai, the Archer, or the Inquisitor. That Dispel Magic ability is always helpful.
Inquisitor is better at mage slaying than Wizard Slayer. The sad truth.
Some of the threads here over the last couple of months definitely piqued my interest in trying a Wizard Slayer, though. Never played one. This business of getting 10 hits in on the target and then the enemy wizard's spells fail sounds like it could be pretty badass. I just wonder around what level and with which weapons profs/weapons that starts to become a regular occurrence. (Sorry, I don't mean to start a tangent here, because there's several threads on this subject by now. Still, it intrigues me.)
If you hit a mage 10 times, they aren't going to be alive anymore.
I assume hitting a stoneskin layer or a mirror image counts as a "hit" according to their ability, but I have no idea if that is the case.
Looking longer term, HLAs in BG2:EE for Fighters will top off at 21 HLAs, and since they can reach level 40 under the cap, rather than level 34, you're looking at an extra 18 HP plus Con for those 6 levels, in addition to typically having an HP, THAC0 and saves advantage in BG:EE as they're always reaching those levels earlier.
Coupled with ending up with better THAC0 (from Mastery), and easier access to dual classing if you decide you want to later down the line, there are reasons you might want to pick another class than "Fighter" for someone you want "fighting", but they ain't mechanical in my mind, they're thematic.
I completly agree with you for BG2, that's why I get rid of Minsc as soon as Sarevok is available (hey you can get him to Chaotic good !).
But since in BG1, Fighter and Paladin can both gain access to level 8, this not a very big change.
xp 125 000 for a fighter and 161 000 for a paladin (if I am right).
Okay, I'm liking the paladin at this point. They make a great protagonist. now the debate continues...for BGEE...which kit is best??
I'm going to use a paladin and I think I'll go with Cavalier. It seems the most versatile out of the three kits imo.
I'm doing a Cavalier playthrough now. It was great in Baldur's Gate, and the protections and bonuses have really held up well so far in BG2. (Tutu Playthrough)
The immunities are AWESOME. Poison not only blocks normal poison effects like spiders, but it makes my paladin immune to Cloudkill XD That is all kinds of fun. Immunity to Fear helps a LOT, as fear is a common effect mages like. Charm keeps you from killing your own guys. Stacking fire protection works better if you start with 20% so that's really good. And the "No ranged Weapon" downside only counts for weapons that are ONLY ranged. You can use throwing axes but not darts or bows.
This issue is entirely a matter of player style and preference. Some people love the "me see, me kill" approach, and like to roleplay a weapons master, so they want that fighter ***** ability.
You could give that and heavy armor up and take barbarian instead, with an innate ability to be immune to most states, or better yet, a berserker, who adds the last couple of dangerous states plus immunity to the Imprisonment spell to his special ability.
Paladin kits give you limited state immunities, and/or awesome bonuses, and/or innate double-strength Dispel Magic and True Sight. To me, it's a no-brainer which is better, but lots of people just really want that weapon specialization.
The straight fighter class is also there so that you can multiclass it with any other class to great benefit, if you're willing to have a lesser spell or thief ability progression.
And the "No ranged Weapon" downside only counts for weapons that are ONLY ranged. You can use throwing axes but not darts or bows.
You can also use throwing daggers, but axes are a better pick as a) you can also use the melee ones, and some are very good b) their the only missile weapon (apart from one sling and one bow in BG2, I think) where your Strength damage bonus gets added to damage. There's a couple of magic returning ones late in BG1 too. The non-magic throwing axes are very heavy, though, so you have to buy little and often.
2) You have aura of despair, which like berserker rage, gives you equivalent bonuses, although through hindering your opponent.
3) You have poison weapon and vampiric ability goodies, to go with your badassery.
4) You are immune to fear and level drain.
If you wanna be evil, this time Paladin has a solution, the Blackguard.
Other than that, it's a new kit, it might also open up some interesting roleplaying aspects previously unseen. We'll see, but for sure i'll try it out myself
Need help deciding folks. Really love grand mastery with a fighter, but the paladin kits are enticing. Just looking for opinions on which people prefer.
For me, the answer depends on whether you're playing BG1 or BG2.
In BG1, paladins were the best class IMO - in fact, they were hugely overpowered compared to the rest of the classes IMO.
In BG2, I'd probably favor fighters (specifically, berserkers or barbarians) over paladins, since they are often more adept at foiling the work of spellcasters in BG2 (i.e: a berserker or barbarian's "rage" ability gives them temporary complete immunity to many powerful spells). Plus, fighters level up faster, which becomes increasingly beneficial when you reach the higher levels in BG2 and require increasingly greater exp points to continue leveling.
Comments
Meanwhile, their levelling rate is slower than a fighter, so they hit every milestone later.
Looking longer term, HLAs in BG2:EE for Fighters will top off at 21 HLAs, and since they can reach level 40 under the cap, rather than level 34, you're looking at an extra 18 HP plus Con for those 6 levels, in addition to typically having an HP, THAC0 and saves advantage in BG:EE as they're always reaching those levels earlier.
Coupled with ending up with better THAC0 (from Mastery), and easier access to dual classing if you decide you want to later down the line, there are reasons you might want to pick another class than "Fighter" for someone you want "fighting", but they ain't mechanical in my mind, they're thematic.
The magic resist starts going up by 5% after level 19 for whatever reason, and you're actually allowed to equip the magic amulet Ellesime gives you at the end of SoA, so in the expansion, you can quite easily get to 100% magic resist. You can't wear bracers/guantlets, rings, most amulets, and belts, but you can wear magic boots and helmets (but not Ioun Stones). Losing the belt isn't that bad if you take most of strength upgrades (my half orc started with 19, got +1 for the Machine of Lum the Mad, +1 for Deck of Many things, and somehow got +3 from the Tear of Wrath in Hell, even though it's supposed to be +2) Still, the loss of guantlets and rings sucks, and you only really have one option for necklace.
I'm pretty set on my first playthrough being a Kensai, as I'm interested in playing this class without going the dual class route. I'm also very interested in the archer kit. Beyond that, maybe will try the Cavalier... Might do a dual class at some point, but I have to get over my aversion to level one playing after I do so... Major downer, even if though pays off in the end.
But since in BG1, Fighter and Paladin can both gain access to level 8, this not a very big change.
xp 125 000 for a fighter and 161 000 for a paladin (if I am right).
1) Fighters advance in level a tad bit faster.
2) Paladins can use the Holy Avenger in BG2. Along with the right items, you can make them heavily resistant to magic and fire allowing you to throw them alone into combat and lob in spells from behind.
3) Fighters will end up with more attacks when all is said and done.
4) Fighters have no alignment or race restrictions and often multi / dual class better.
5) Paladins are good at having resistances and immunities (granted by protection from evil and kits powers).
6) Paladins generally have better saving throws, making them better for running in first (setting off traps and being the first targeted by spells).
7) If the XP cap for BG:EE is 161,000, paladins and fighters will both be able to reach level 8. If the cap for BG2:EE is 8,000,000, fighters will end with 6 more levels (and 6 more high level abilities).
8) Lay on Hands is good first aid since it's hard to disrupt (short casting time) and is usually already on the front line (since that is where paladins often are).
Personally, I'd roll with a paladin as my main and keep a fighter as my second since I'm a defensive player. The paladin's protections, abilities, and possible immunities are good at keeping him safe. If I wanted to be more aggressive or if I wanted a "lesser fighter" as my second (muliclass fighter, swashbuckler, etc.) then I might consider a fighter as my main.
If you choose Cavalier, make sure to put proficiency points in axes so that you can use Throwing Axes, thus cheating their "only melee weapons!" rule.
The immunities are AWESOME. Poison not only blocks normal poison effects like spiders, but it makes my paladin immune to Cloudkill XD That is all kinds of fun. Immunity to Fear helps a LOT, as fear is a common effect mages like. Charm keeps you from killing your own guys. Stacking fire protection works better if you start with 20% so that's really good. And the "No ranged Weapon" downside only counts for weapons that are ONLY ranged. You can use throwing axes but not darts or bows.
You could give that and heavy armor up and take barbarian instead, with an innate ability to be immune to most states, or better yet, a berserker, who adds the last couple of dangerous states plus immunity to the Imprisonment spell to his special ability.
Paladin kits give you limited state immunities, and/or awesome bonuses, and/or innate double-strength Dispel Magic and True Sight. To me, it's a no-brainer which is better, but lots of people just really want that weapon specialization.
The straight fighter class is also there so that you can multiclass it with any other class to great benefit, if you're willing to have a lesser spell or thief ability progression.
Blackguard.
Why?
Because :
1) You're a badass.
2) You have aura of despair, which like berserker rage, gives you equivalent bonuses, although through hindering your opponent.
3) You have poison weapon and vampiric ability goodies, to go with your badassery.
4) You are immune to fear and level drain.
If you wanna be evil, this time Paladin has a solution, the Blackguard.
Other than that, it's a new kit, it might also open up some interesting roleplaying aspects previously unseen. We'll see, but for sure i'll try it out myself
In BG1, paladins were the best class IMO - in fact, they were hugely overpowered compared to the rest of the classes IMO.
In BG2, I'd probably favor fighters (specifically, berserkers or barbarians) over paladins, since they are often more adept at foiling the work of spellcasters in BG2 (i.e: a berserker or barbarian's "rage" ability gives them temporary complete immunity to many powerful spells). Plus, fighters level up faster, which becomes increasingly beneficial when you reach the higher levels in BG2 and require increasingly greater exp points to continue leveling.