Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

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!

Weakest Possible Party

I see a lot of discussion of whats the most powerful of this class or the other, or what the most powerful powergaming class is.

What about, the weakest classes? Whats the worst possible multiplayer party without repeating any classes? Note I'm assuming that after selecting the class you still try to make the character optimised- obviously all 3s is going to be the weakest possible in theory, but thats not very interesting.

You can certainly beat the game with anyone (vanilla, anyway) but it might be an interesting challenge, as well as an interesting discussion.

For me, I think we are essentially looking at a party of the weakest single class warriors.
So perhaps:
Beastmaster- Gain almost nothing, lose most of the best weapons
Wizard slayer- Nice special abilities, nowhere near worth losing almost all equipment
Monk- better than the above but still far from fantastic
Kensai- great damage but theres a reason this is normally used for dual classing
Archer- Great in BG1 but not in BG2, and deprives the party of a proper tank
Stalker or bounty hunter? -Still no tank, though both bring some nice abilities and will probably be the standout character...

I think this would be a challenge in BG2, and in BGEE a couple of these will be awful. Just for BGEE subbing out a couple of them for thieves might have it harder, though. If its no reloads, add in a wild mage. Although that basically just reads, "if its no reloads fail".

«1

Comments

  • KaltzorKaltzor Member Posts: 1,050
    A party that can function but is as weak as possible...

    Well, I suppose it would go something like

    Wizard Slayer as the fighter - No magical items other than armor, weapons and boots...

    Bounty Hunter as the thief - Less thief skills than usual and none of the advantages of the assassin....

    Cleric/Mage as the mage and healer - Because casting only one spell a turn, either cleric or mage, will work out so well when filling two roles

    A beastmaster - Because why would you want to use any melee weaponry outside of quarterstaffs or clubs... Or wear armor beyond studded leather... or be an archer without the benefits of the archer kit.

    A shapeshifter - Druids at lower levels are not all that good, and shapeshifters get to wear no armor, and get a very much powered down version of werewolves

    A Fighter/Mage/Thief or Fighter/Mage/Cleric - Why have one class when you can have three to split all XP between... They take a rather lucky stat roll to be even remotely viable and take quite long to level up.

    lunar
  • kamuizinkamuizin Member Posts: 3,683
    Crazy thread!

    Kensai, when made human to dual mage or thief, Archer are both one of the best overpowered classes of the game. In ToB, archer attack has a chance of slow enemies if i'm not wrong also.

    Monk... dude, monk IS the BEST CLASS of the game, period. He's weak at the begin (just run a game in blackpits and import a character with the monk gloves with a multi-player or cluaconsole it if you don't like to face a too hard challenge) but by far become the most powerful class at the end of the game.

    Wizard Slayer isn't strong or weak, it's a problematic class only, the fun you get from playing is dropped a lot when you can't equip most of the items you find in the character you created, and the holes in the inventory, generated by the lack of normal accessories to do something in an non magical way really bother anyone that like to make gear set for their characters.

    Stalkers are a pretty decent class.

    Bounty hunters aren't really so special but they can cheese easly, beast masters really sucks and shape-shifter aren't the best (neither the wrost) druid class.

  • TinterTinter Member Posts: 152
    edited May 2013
    @kaltzor -the goal is the weakest party, I'm happy for it to miss core functions- that would be part of the challenge.

    Shapeshifters are pretty terrible, but if you just use them as a back rank caster I think they contribute more to the party than another warrior? They probably are in the 6 worst classes though...

    @kamuizin -Yeah, I know Kensai's are great to dual class. Thats why this guys a half-elf- the whole point is to make a relatively weak character. Those empty slots make the wizard slayer weaker- his saves, armour class, ect are all lower. Potions are pretty great as well.

    I certainly don't agree that the monk is the most powerful class (sorcerers say hello), but I agree that archer, stalker and monk aren't totally useless or anything- I just think they are weaker than the alternatives. There aren't 6 totally useless classes- if there were, then the question wouldn't be interesting!

  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 1,933
    I don't really try to do weak on purpose, but it can be a lot of fun to do no re-roll.

  • KaltzorKaltzor Member Posts: 1,050
    edited May 2013
    @Tinter Well, if you want something that doesn't have all that you need to actually go through all, I think something like 6 Beastmasters...

    A group of 6 Rangers, who are not good at all in melee combat and not specialized in ranged combat who's special abilities are to make random animals friendly... When most of the game has none around during major fights.

  • TinterTinter Member Posts: 152
    I was aiming not to repeat for variety, but yeah thats probably the worst possible. At least 6 wizard slayers might annoy wizards!

  • francofranco Member Posts: 507
    Since you specify the Worst Possible the answer would probably have to be the most 'extremely unbalanced' party. I think this would mean they are all in the same class, and especially all in the same sub-class. For example, a party of 6 inquisitors. No thief or arcane magic abilities, and practically no cleric abilities. They would hold up well in the beginning, but eventually it would look like the fall of Byzantium.

    Mortianna
  • TinterTinter Member Posts: 152
    I think 6 undead hunters would be worse. Or, of course, the aforementioned 6 beastmasters. I think its more interesting with 6 different characters though.

  • MortiannaMortianna Member Posts: 1,355
    Here's my best attempt at the weakest, class-balanced party:

    Beastmaster Ranger
    Diviner (can't cast Find Familiar)
    Cleric/Thief
    Shapeshifter Druid
    Monk
    Kensai

    Imagine how long they'd last in IWD.

  • zur312zur312 Member Posts: 1,366
    edited May 2013
    LOL weakest party and than he just name most op classes in the game (ok beastmaster is weaker but he is still a ranger)
    best antimage class
    best damage class
    best range damage class
    and monk

    oO

  • NifftNifft Member Posts: 1,065
    @zur312 - best anti-mage class is the Mage, or perhaps the Inquisitor, or maybe the end-game ToB Monk.

    Monk is fine in BG2, good towards the end of BG2, and OP in ToB... but in BG1, it sucks rotten lizard eggs.

  • SouthpawSouthpaw Member Posts: 2,026
    don't forget to add a very poorly set up sorceror as a weak class. (imagine being able to cast Infravision and Detect Invisibility 6x a day)

  • GoodSteveGoodSteve Member Posts: 607
    Worst group for BG1? I'd say:

    1. Wizard Slayer - A poor class all around but the lack of very powerful mage encounters in the first game makes what little use they can be not very useful.
    2. Beastmaster - Looses far too much and gains no real benefit other than a Familiar and a marginal increase in stealth.
    3. Stalker - Only 2x backstab for entirity of the game and doesn't gain the useful spells for the loss of heavy armor prof.
    4. Monk - While a great class come ToB it suffers at low levels and, in my opinion, is the worst class in BG:EE.
    5. Kensai - Low level BG is ruthless and with few hit points and very little AC (not many non-armor, non-guantlet AC items of any signifigance in the first game) a Kensai will frequently get splattered.
    6. Assassin - While their poison can be useful their backstab multiplier is no better than any of the other thief classes in the first game and with only 15 points to distribute to thief skills it will struggle to fulfill the role as party thief.

    Skatan
  • TaylorTwerkTaylorTwerk Member Posts: 79
    With npcs? I think wizzy slayer, xan, garrick, faldon, eldoth, quayle. Without wizzy slayer, diviner, bard, cleric/thief, shapeshifter, monk (only for bg1 bg2 monks kick ass.)

  • DJKajuruDJKajuru Member Posts: 3,277
    @Tinter , I disagree with you. Except for wizard slayer, all the classes you've mentioned can cause havok in the hands of a smart player - not through frontal assault, but through stealth and appropriate tactics.

    thespace
  • GodGod Member Posts: 1,150
    Mortianna said:

    [...]
    Diviner (can't cast Find Familiar)
    [...]
    Imagine how long they'd last in IWD.

    Funny that you mention this.
    A (mithral elf) diviner named Arra became my favourite character of all time after one IWD playthrough. I grew so fond of him that I played IWD2 with him and also made him join Charname as a NPC in BG&BG2.
    By the end of ToB he basically was potent enough to turn Elminster into a squirrel and go on a god-killing spree.

    @Tinter
    I suggest a fallen paladin or ranger. Add a helmet of opposite alignment to that and you have a warrior of good who confronted evil - and became evil. Perfectly viable roleplay-wise and good stats are not an issue, since the penalties of being fallen outweigh even high rolls. Ridiculously weak and thus challenging. Enjoy.
    Also, fallen kitted paladins and rangers still retain kit names. That's cool. You can even be a fallen beastmaster or fallen undead hunter.

  • TinterTinter Member Posts: 152
    @mortianna -Cleric/Thief is one I thought of, its certainly the worst multiclasses- very little synergy. Diviner though...wand access is a big help?

    @southpaw Yes- I've often thought a "random spells" sorcerer might be fun- use a random number generator to pick which spells you get and try to cope. Problem is you do eventually get level 10 spells though, which takes away some of the fun.

    @goodsteve - I was trying to think of the whole trilogy but thats a really good call for in BG1. I think I'd swap a bounty hunter for the assassin though, at least poison weapon is useful whereas as the only thief the bounty hunter isn't going to be using traps realistically so is just...eh.

    @djkajuru - well, my point wasn't really to pick 6 classes that are totally useless. Like I said, a good player can win with any class. Its more, which are the 6 that are least useful?

    @god Eh I kind of feeling falling is outside what I'm looking at, I mean I could have them all use the rift device as well, but I'm thinking more whats a challenge even if well played.

  • zur312zur312 Member Posts: 1,366
    edited May 2013
    i disagree on almost everything

    beastmaster - ok he is not like a fighter but still
    -fighter hp
    -ranger specialization
    -can use really good weapons like +3 staff
    -can easily dual-wield

    kensai
    - +2 ac natural
    -best damage
    -armor can be replaced easily by anything like barskin etc.

    wizard slayer
    -fighter hp
    -fighter specialization
    -can use great magical weapons armoars helmets and boots? you lose very little
    -i think there is no mantle like spells so wizard slayer is the best antimage class

    cleric/thief
    you got to be joking right? this is like semi-powergaming class
    -backstabing with duhm with +3 staff or staff-mace
    -summon skeletons


    fallen paladins/rangers
    -still fighter hp
    -paladin specialization
    -only lose special abilities and you could easily play without them (but they are handy)

    the only possibility would be really bad mix in the team but when doing this by rule every character different than it is really hard to do something like that


    you could ofc get low stats bad spells and no proficiency in weapons but that is just weird

  • Officer_HotpantsOfficer_Hotpants Member Posts: 14
    Holy crap monks are ridiculous at high levels. In ToB they become fucking Jackie Chan, but throughout all of the first game, a monk could get his ass handed to him by the Karate Kid. Seriously, I've recently gone through the game as a Dark Moon monk, and I am really just waiting for him to become useful in BGII. I love that class so much. It's always cool picturing my character as being a kung full master as I'm beating things to death with my bare hands.

  • GoodSteveGoodSteve Member Posts: 607
    @zur312 This thread is supposed to be naming what would be the weakest possible combo of classes to play through the game with not try to debunk everyone's opinions on the matter while not giving any of your own. If you don't feel any of these are the weakest choices then what are?

    Lets take a look at what you don't think are the worst choices:

    "beastmaster - ok he is not like a fighter but still
    -fighter hp
    -ranger specialization
    -can use really good weapons like +3 staff
    -can easily dual-wield"

    Ok, lets look at a regular un-kitted ranger in comparison...
    -Fighter HP
    -Ranger Specialization (I assume this means favored enemy)
    -Can use really good weapons like the +3 staff
    -Can easily dual-wield
    -Can wear armor heavier than studded leather
    -Can use any weapon they want

    The normal ranger seems to be better in this comparison but granted you didn't list any of the actual benefits of the Beastmaster class, the fact that they get summon familiar at level one and a +15% increase to stealth. Even with those two perks (there are more but those are the only ones you get in BG:EE due to the level cap) the normal ranger seems like the better choice to me.

    "kensai
    - +2 ac natural
    -best damage
    -armor can be replaced easily by anything like barskin etc."

    The +2 AC isn't anything to write home about, its a super gimped version of what a swashbuckler gets and will not make up for their lack of armor, at all. They're also not the "best damage" class, that would most likely be a Sorcerer with fireball. Barkskin is a great spell but to say that it easily replaces armor is simply untrue. With the +2 AC bonus and Barkskin cast by at least an 8th level druid (so very near to the end of the 1st game) you will have the equivalent of a suit of armor with 2 AC which is basically +1 plate mail. Considering you can get armor with 0 AC in the first game that is permanent and doesn't have to be cast over and over, and cannot be dispelled, and doesn't eat up any spell slots your claim is a bold one.

    "wizard slayer
    -fighter hp"

    I like how you keep saying "fighter hp" like it is a boon for that particular kit... normal fighters have fighter HP, it stands to reason one of their kits would share this trait. It isn't a stand out point for why the wizard slayer is a good class.

    "-fighter specialization"

    The vanilla fighter also gets this, this isn't a special trait of the wizard slayer.

    "-can use great magical weapons armoars helmets and boots? you lose very little"

    Guess what? Every class in the game can do that (I consider mage robes a type of "armor") so it's not a perk of this class. Also, you lose quite a bit from not having magical gear, yes even in the first game. Not being able to wear a belt means that you cannot use the Big Fisted Belt to gain 19 strength for one, but sure maybe you already have the tome and don't need it. Well, the other belts in the game can give you +3 AC versus very common types of attack (like piercing, which all ranged weapon are considered besides the obvious melee ones). You loose out on Guantlets of Weapon Expertise which means every other Fighter will have +1 thac0 and +2 damage more than a wizard slayer. You miss out on the Greenstone amulet which gives protection against all charm, confusion, fear, hold, sleep, and feeblemind attacks, you know, all the major attacks that mages will try and use against you. You miss out on the Ring of Protection +2 which combined with the Ankheg plate makes for the best armor in the game. Also, the ring of Free Action is great, but you've already got the Greenstone Amulet right? Oh no, that's right, you're a wizard slayer :P

    This is a very brief list of GREAT items the wizard slayer cannot use. It gets even more absurd once you get to SoA and ToB.

    "-i think there is no mantle like spells so wizard slayer is the best antimage class"

    Other mages or a cleric with the silence spell are actually the best antimage class. With 1 spell a cleric with Silence could make (lets just say for simplicities sake...) 3 mages not be able to cast spells... OR you could attack each mage 10 times with your Wizard Slayer (so 30 attacks) to achieve the same result...

    "cleric/thief
    you got to be joking right? this is like semi-powergaming class
    -backstabing with duhm with +3 staff or staff-mace
    -summon skeletons"

    I actually agree that the Cleric/Thief is a great class and is sorely underestimated. Looking for some great synergy? Cast Sanctuary on yourself, walk into the final battle with Sarevok and disable all the traps lying around while he and his cronies stand there like a pack of goons and simply watch you do it. Or cast Draw Upon Holy Might on your Half-Orc Cleric/Thief with a base 19 strength and see what can stand up against that backstab.

    "fallen paladins/rangers
    -still fighter hp
    -paladin specialization
    -only lose special abilities and you could easily play without them (but they are handy)"

    I simply can't believe that you're defnding Fallen Rangers and Fallen Paladins as not being a bad class... they are literally the worst versions of either of those classes! They're those classes but without any of their abilities! How are they not simply worse than the Ranger and Paladin?!

    Are you saying that the fighter class is so great that with just hit points and specialization in a weapon type you're better than another class? What class is a Fallen Ranger or Fallen Paladin better than? Really, I would love to know which class is worse than something that's not even a class, but a lack of a class... Seriously, enlighten me.

    TinterEudaemoniumNeonfiskSkatan
  • TinterTinter Member Posts: 152
    But beastmasters can dual wield clubs! Thats scary!

    Goodsteve has the right of it, clearly the point isn't "this class, literally, cannot even kill a diseased gibberling", the point is to think about which are the weakest classes of those available.

    I agree cleric/thief doesn't belong here. I think its the weakest multiclass, but mutliclassing is generally pretty darn good.

  • kamuizinkamuizin Member Posts: 3,683
    For me the most weakest class is Skald kit of Bard, not weak because of itself, but more because of the existence of the Blade kit for bard.

    Beastmaster by far, as the summon animals spells in BG really sucks (to high in level to bring so low power allies).

    Barbarians to me are weak in reason of the impossibility to dual class and because berserkers get more than them in the long run.

    By speaking in long run terms, the dragon disciple sorcerer isn't very cool, the bonus they receive are clearly intented for low level games and only 4 spells? Really hope this doesn't bind the HLAs of mages.

    Paladin vanilla class is pretty weak in comparison to his kits options.

    WS isn't a weak class, just have to put this straight, it's just furstrating that i have to run the entire game with 80% of my inventory empty, i look the magical items and i can't equip them, that get on the nerves.

    I didn't like the cleric/wizard multi-class, but probally that's an class intented to be played in solo game or at least with 3 or 4 party members only.

    That it for me.

  • MortiannaMortianna Member Posts: 1,355
    @God @tinter

    I was thinking of the party the would be least likely to finish the game. Every class becomes powerful in the their own way at high levels, but it's making it to those high levels which I think would be especially challenging for the party I listed.

    franco
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 20,697
    @Samus exactly!

    In my opinion, any class can work out fine and the whole weakest party concept is perhaps less about what works in the game and more about comparing a party with normal power to a party with OP abilities.

    [Deleted User]
  • zur312zur312 Member Posts: 1,366
    edited May 2013
    GoodSteve said:

    @zur312 This thread is supposed to be naming what would be the weakest possible combo of classes to play through the game with not try to debunk everyone's opinions on the matter while not giving any of your own. If you don't feel any of these are the weakest choices then what are?

    Lets take a look at what you don't think are the worst choices:

    "beastmaster - ok he is not like a fighter but still
    -fighter hp
    -ranger specialization
    -can use really good weapons like +3 staff
    -can easily dual-wield"

    Ok, lets look at a regular un-kitted ranger in comparison...
    -Fighter HP
    -Ranger Specialization (I assume this means favored enemy)
    -Can use really good weapons like the +3 staff
    -Can easily dual-wield
    -Can wear armor heavier than studded leather
    -Can use any weapon they want

    The normal ranger seems to be better in this comparison but granted you didn't list any of the actual benefits of the Beastmaster class, the fact that they get summon familiar at level one and a +15% increase to stealth. Even with those two perks (there are more but those are the only ones you get in BG:EE due to the level cap) the normal ranger seems like the better choice to me.

    "kensai
    - +2 ac natural
    -best damage
    -armor can be replaced easily by anything like barskin etc."

    The +2 AC isn't anything to write home about, its a super gimped version of what a swashbuckler gets and will not make up for their lack of armor, at all. They're also not the "best damage" class, that would most likely be a Sorcerer with fireball. Barkskin is a great spell but to say that it easily replaces armor is simply untrue. With the +2 AC bonus and Barkskin cast by at least an 8th level druid (so very near to the end of the 1st game) you will have the equivalent of a suit of armor with 2 AC which is basically +1 plate mail. Considering you can get armor with 0 AC in the first game that is permanent and doesn't have to be cast over and over, and cannot be dispelled, and doesn't eat up any spell slots your claim is a bold one.

    "wizard slayer
    -fighter hp"

    I like how you keep saying "fighter hp" like it is a boon for that particular kit... normal fighters have fighter HP, it stands to reason one of their kits would share this trait. It isn't a stand out point for why the wizard slayer is a good class.

    "-fighter specialization"

    The vanilla fighter also gets this, this isn't a special trait of the wizard slayer.

    "-can use great magical weapons armoars helmets and boots? you lose very little"

    Guess what? Every class in the game can do that (I consider mage robes a type of "armor") so it's not a perk of this class. Also, you lose quite a bit from not having magical gear, yes even in the first game. Not being able to wear a belt means that you cannot use the Big Fisted Belt to gain 19 strength for one, but sure maybe you already have the tome and don't need it. Well, the other belts in the game can give you +3 AC versus very common types of attack (like piercing, which all ranged weapon are considered besides the obvious melee ones). You loose out on Guantlets of Weapon Expertise which means every other Fighter will have +1 thac0 and +2 damage more than a wizard slayer. You miss out on the Greenstone amulet which gives protection against all charm, confusion, fear, hold, sleep, and feeblemind attacks, you know, all the major attacks that mages will try and use against you. You miss out on the Ring of Protection +2 which combined with the Ankheg plate makes for the best armor in the game. Also, the ring of Free Action is great, but you've already got the Greenstone Amulet right? Oh no, that's right, you're a wizard slayer :P

    This is a very brief list of GREAT items the wizard slayer cannot use. It gets even more absurd once you get to SoA and ToB.

    "-i think there is no mantle like spells so wizard slayer is the best antimage class"

    Other mages or a cleric with the silence spell are actually the best antimage class. With 1 spell a cleric with Silence could make (lets just say for simplicities sake...) 3 mages not be able to cast spells... OR you could attack each mage 10 times with your Wizard Slayer (so 30 attacks) to achieve the same result...

    "cleric/thief
    you got to be joking right? this is like semi-powergaming class
    -backstabing with duhm with +3 staff or staff-mace
    -summon skeletons"

    I actually agree that the Cleric/Thief is a great class and is sorely underestimated. Looking for some great synergy? Cast Sanctuary on yourself, walk into the final battle with Sarevok and disable all the traps lying around while he and his cronies stand there like a pack of goons and simply watch you do it. Or cast Draw Upon Holy Might on your Half-Orc Cleric/Thief with a base 19 strength and see what can stand up against that backstab.

    "fallen paladins/rangers
    -still fighter hp
    -paladin specialization
    -only lose special abilities and you could easily play without them (but they are handy)"

    I simply can't believe that you're defnding Fallen Rangers and Fallen Paladins as not being a bad class... they are literally the worst versions of either of those classes! They're those classes but without any of their abilities! How are they not simply worse than the Ranger and Paladin?!

    Are you saying that the fighter class is so great that with just hit points and specialization in a weapon type you're better than another class? What class is a Fallen Ranger or Fallen Paladin better than? Really, I would love to know which class is worse than something that's not even a class, but a lack of a class... Seriously, enlighten me.

    it is just what i said before

    beastmaster fallen rangers etc. can be "just" a little weaker versions of the class not the weakest. Could you play fallen ranger or beastmaster? yes! It would be pretty easy like 2 star warrior

    especially fallen rangers and paladins are pretty similar to the original
    rangers get like 1 spell on max level and have wow 1 favored enemy
    that is really not big deal

  • MortiannaMortianna Member Posts: 1,355
    Samus said:

    It is not always the quality of the sword that determines the outcome of a battle, but rather the skill of the Swordsman.

    Qualitatively, yes. But, quantitatively, long swords do much damage on average than daggers. There's something to be said for raw potential.

    NeonfiskBelgarathMTH
  • TinterTinter Member Posts: 152
    Of course all the classes are playable. You can win the game with a fighter with all 6 stats, but clearly that character is weaker than one with all 18's.

    So yes, beastmasters and fallen paladins are playable, but they are also measurably weaker than other classes. So, they are weaker than them, which is all the thread is about.

    "Weakest" doesn't mean you can't win the game with them. Indeed, part of the point of the thread is that I might like to go and complete the game with such a party! Revenge of the little guys kind of thing.

    However, losing access to 90% of weapons and armour makes you weaker than other characters who have the same abilities but not those restrictions. The beastmaster is weaker than most other warriors simply due to his restrictions.

    Theres no contradiction between that fact and the fact that the game has been soloed with a beastmaster. Weak is a relative term. Its the same as if I say a druid is weaker than a sorcerer, it doesn't mean the druid is unusable- its just weaker than what its being compared to. Weakest = least strong. Weakest =/= cannot fight a rat.

    SouthpawEudaemoniumfrancoNeonfisk
  • SouthpawSouthpaw Member Posts: 2,026
    @Tinter - understand. Just as it is possible to solo the game with an unkitted Thief, a Paladin may be much easier.

    Eudaemoniumfranco[Deleted User]
  • zur312zur312 Member Posts: 1,366
    but weakest should be really weakest not like saying oh wizard slayer is weakest when he loses like a ring and amu
    or fallen ranger losing 1 spell and favored enemy

    they are still 90% power at least and that is not weakest

Sign In or Register to comment.