Classes you've never touched
Ballad
Member Posts: 205
Let's talk about classes/kits that we haven't tried - or only played very minimally - for one reason or another.
I've been playing BG since 2001, yet it has never occured to me to roll a Barbarian. In fact, I didn't even remember the class existed until recently. From what I understand, it is just an inferior Berserker that cannot even dual. I'm also not too keen on playing a redneck Charname...
Single class priests have also never been on my radar. I love the idea of most priest kits, yet something about being a pure class cleric puts me off. Maybe it's the 1 APR. Dunno.
Now that I think about, I also haven't touched the druid kits. Though I must say, some of them - such as the Avenger - look really interesting.
What about you? Is there a class/kit you've never player, and why?
I've been playing BG since 2001, yet it has never occured to me to roll a Barbarian. In fact, I didn't even remember the class existed until recently. From what I understand, it is just an inferior Berserker that cannot even dual. I'm also not too keen on playing a redneck Charname...
Single class priests have also never been on my radar. I love the idea of most priest kits, yet something about being a pure class cleric puts me off. Maybe it's the 1 APR. Dunno.
Now that I think about, I also haven't touched the druid kits. Though I must say, some of them - such as the Avenger - look really interesting.
What about you? Is there a class/kit you've never player, and why?
1
Comments
All of the EE added kits and classes except dragon disciple, but I abandoned that one.
I get bored of them pretty fast as majority of the play styles grow stale fast.
I sometimes like to be a fighter type, a cleric type, or more rarely, a wizard type. Never a rogue. A rogue is somebody for me to play off of, not to be.
On the other hand, my favored companions in D&D are often rogues, partly out of needing the skill set, but also partly out of being attracted to the personality type. So I always use Imoen, Yoshimo, Tomi Undergallows, Neeska, and/or Mission. (Remember Mission from Kotor?)
Funny enough two of my most memorable runs were as these. The beastmaster though was mostly memorable because it was an exercise in frustration.
Mages aren't on the near horizon, either; the themed party ideas that I'll likely pick from next include a party in which nobody can read, a party in which nobody casts spells, and a party with as much paladin as possible. No room for mage protagonists there; in two cases, they can't even be in the permanent party.
Oddly enough, if I were to self-insert into a D&D-ish fantasy world, it would be as a mage - an academic-minded hermit trying to understand arcane secrets. That picture I use as my avatar could double as a containment circle for summoning non-Euclidean beasties.
Unkitted fighter
Beastmaster
Most of the mage specializations
Jester (just seems dumb to me)
Cleric (no reason not to take kits)
Transmuter/Illusionist/Abjurer/Diviner (bonuses aren't worth losing access to some of my favorite spells)
Both monk kits (lost interest in monk class by the time the EE's came around)
Skald (boring support character-I like to be the focal point)
Beastmaster gets a bad rap. They still get access to all missile weapons and can be an elf for Long & Shortbow bonuses too. They're not powerhouses by any means, but they're not terrible either...
Totemic druid and Avenger are really fun if you ever want to try out a different kind of druid. Totemic disadvantages aren't crippling either (when's the last time anybody used shapechange anyway?). Avengers take a hit in the disadvantage department but the wizard spells and much cooler shapechange forms offer a different kind of experience....
I'm a multi-class kind of guy myself, so I never played kits that you'd chose for dual-class purposes... yet, at least... trying to break that habit.
Also, I don't like my PC's to be gnomes, dwarves, halflings or half-orcs (I mean, that applies to protagonist only... I totally like NPC's ones!) so no classes that go with those either... but I'd totally see me trying a Dwarven Defender at some point maybe in IWD, those are cool.
I tend to play things like F/T/M, F/C/M, F/M, or even C/M, or R/C myself. If I could chose Kits for those in-game with no mods, I probably would try some kits at some point.
For single class characters, I normally prefer Sorcerer... the only kit I ever played is Dragon Disciple
I play good aligned chars, so no evil restricted classes for me either, like Blackguard or such.
Also never touched the Sun Soul Monk. The monk that can also do fire damage, and that's it. Fire damage does not make a kit unique in a game where fire damage is the most common form of spell damage.
Edit: spelling
but with that said here is what i what i use/dont use - if this is a charname -;
fighters;
the only time i play fighter these days is if its for a dual or multi-class, kensai and berserker are just way too damn good so i dont play those anymore, and i dont find the wizard slayer interesting enough to play ( even though that was my go to class when i first played SoA )
rangers;
not really interested in the beast master so i never choose that, sometimes i will play an archer just for the amazing ranged lulz, but for melee i will either do stalker or normal ranger, and funny thing is, if i play stalker, i still barely if ever backstab with it, i just do it mostly because you get an AC "penalty" for not being able to wear full plate mails, although if im a two handed or dual wielding ranger i will just choose normal ranger instead
paladins;
i always choose cavalier, they are basically normal paladins with virtually no disadvantages and all advantages ( they are pretty much blade from the blade series ), i played an undead hunter once, and even though they get some neat perks, i found that it wasnt really worth while to do so, i didnt feel any stronger against undead as a cavalier would have, and i never play inquisitors because their dispel magic is way to damn good and their true seeing is also amazing, so thats a nope, although every once in awhile i will bring keldorn along for my teams, so its okay then
monks;
i like to play these guys every once in a while, just to get away from the super power house out of the gate sort of characters, and i always play a default one, the two class kits arent interesting enough for me ( although the dark moon one is kind of cool, but must be evil and thats no good for bg1 if i want to use defender )
barbarians/dwarven defender;
barbarians i like to play every once in awhile just like monks, but i dont like playing dwarven defenders, their dwarven stance ability is just way to damn good, and except for the speed boost of barbarians i find dwarven defenders to be way better than barbarians, so no more dwarven defenders for me, and if i play a barbarian 999 time out of 1000 he is using a two handed weapon
bards;
i virtually never play this class ever, and i virtually never bring these guys along either, i feel like they are the sort of class that no matter what they can do, someone else can either do it better or more efficiently so i dont bother use them, although perhaps every once in a million years i will play a blade, but i eventually get bored somewhere in SoA and quit the play through
thieves;
i never play shadow dancer or assassin because i never backstab, the only time i use a bounty hunter is when i have yoshimo in the party, so i will either play swashbucklers ( which i have done many times, in fact the first time i ever solo'd bg1ee was with a swashbuckler ) or a multi-class variant, now adays the fighter/thief is one of my favourite classes because, its not as strong as a full out fighter, but the thief side really does give it some interesting features, especially with that UAI
clerics;
the only time i play clerics its either through a multi or dual class combo, i never play single class clerics regardless of kit, if its going to be more combat active, then im going to dual some fighter levels, if its going to be more spell casting active, then im going to multi-class it with a mage, there is no inbetween
druids;
i rarely if ever play any druid, although every once in a huge while i will actually play a fighter/druid for the lewls, shapeshifter was one a played a lot in the vanilla days when you could dispel their shapeshift weapon and then dual classed over into a fighter and got some amazing bonuses with quarterstaff, especially staff of the woodlands, but now that is all fixed in the EEs, so i dont touch any druid class except for fighter/druids, although i remember one play through i did i was an avenger druid and shapeshifted into a salamander and struggled to take out the gnolls at the gnoll fortress in bg1, was not impressed what so ever, so i never played an avenger after that
arcane casters;
i remember way back in the day i though invokers were the best, oh how awesome it is to be naive, young and so wrong, but thats just the way she goes, now i will usually play sorcerers or do a fighter dual over into mage, and even though my favourite specialist mage is enchanter i never find myself making one, good thing xan exists in bg1
so i think thats everyone
right now, my play through is in SoA and im playing a half-elf fighter/mage/thief, but i've been distracted a bit from american truck simulator to continue that play through, but perhaps i will continue it some time in the near future, or just get the good ol' restartitis and make something new...
I would say that I won't play any fighter type that can't wear heavy armor, because I hate to be vulnerable, but I have played a monk and liked it. But only in BG2 and ToB. They're just too fragile at low levels. (that was before the EE, I don't know about the new monks).
I wouldn't play a wild mage, too unpredictable.
I tried a sorcerer once, but I quit after a short time, because I didn't like the lack of flexibility with spells.
That might change once I get to know the mage spells better and learn to use them more efficiently. I don't have enough experience with that.
I don't think I would ever play an Invoker. I wouldn't want to be without Greater Malison, for example.
In fact, I probably won't choose any specialist mage kit until I have much more experience using mages in general, and maybe not even then. I'd rather not limit my choice of spells.
Most of the things I've said may change when I've played more often.
Edit: Forgot to say, for some reason I don't like dual or multi classes.
Because magic is cool. Everything else isn't.
All my Charnames follow the same formula. Or Bards. Because Bards rock.
Maybe I need to try my hand at other classes, but I always end up feeling they're suboptimal and I lose interest.
I never used any Bard Kit, I use a normal Bard in IWD (I used Hear'dalis for his quest and dropped him after that).
Do iiiiiitt! Once you roast 10 Gibberlings with a single FIreball, you'll never go back! ;)
Once you roast 10 gibberlings AND Imoen at once?
I'm not good with area of effect spells. There do tend to be lost of friendly fire incidents when I am casting spells.
I strongly prefer the fighter HLA, so duals are not my favourite - and I have a unbuffed 200 HP at level 40 minimum requirement as well... So no monks either.
I dislike resting as well, so I go for the regeneration options where I can find them (20 con in BG1 and ring of regeneration in BG2). So I have even learned to appreciate dwarves with their nice constitution.
Arcane Magic spells is not a favourite, but wands are just fine and the spells that I can pick up at the forced rests.
Some 15 years ago I played clerics mostly - actually unkitted in BG2. And I soloed the trilogy with a monk the first time I did that.
But sometimes people grow into the fighter types and not the other way around. So people can go that way as well.
i had a dwarven defender hit over 320 HP in ToB
https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/63063/your-party-screen-shots/p8
I also have never played a monk and many kits.
Paladin/Thief would make a fantastic multiclass, RP-wise. I envision a utilitarian agent of social justice, a knight among the downtrodden, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.