AI might be different, but I've used Chaos to knock off Sarevok and Friends
Right, and we're talking about BG here and not about IWD in HoF mode where everything has hundreds of HP but doesn't deal more damage (and the Insane bonus damage is only applied to damage to deal to your party). I'm sorry, my mistake.
As I stated long ago, by far hands down the fastest wsy to clear out a mob is AoE spell damage.
I believe you. I also believe that it's still inefficient, because you'll run out of spells in awkward situations like resting, or, if you don't run out, will be forced to use inefficient spells which then result in a net efficiency loss at the end of the day.
Its not my fault you feel insulted, blame your inconsistent strategy. You can't argue speedy victory AND argue 'fights take forever'.
Yes, I suppose that would depend on how you portion things. If you take frequent breaks between fights, then you can divide things into small chunks; if you keep going while there are mobs around, there's several situations where you chain fights unless you zone out - and I totally concede that as a valid strategy, I just believe that it's also inefficient as it wastes time. As does waiting out winded periods on Rage, regardless of whether you fight or not. That was really what the point was all about. I admit that my phrasing may have been confusing in between posts.
On to damage from melee discussion... your making lightmof that extra +1 is funny, because you later say he difference is 'about 5'. Meaning, the 13th level, in addition to a +5% hit rate (assuming you'll miss on a very low non 1 roll), his hits each do +1 damage. Meaning he's pretty near equal on damage even if his off-hand doesn't do ANY more damage on its one attack.
Why are we back on the direct comparison? Sure 13 deals more damage but it ALSO TAKES A MILLION XP MORE TO GET TO, and another 1.35m to get to C14. Why do you always just ignore that, as though 2.6m XP were just lying around? On my last run I was about 75% through the game at that XP level. This is not something that can just be casually brushed away! Are you telling me that +1dmg/thac0 is seriously worth that much XP?
Note, I pointed out some strong defensive also cleric useable weapons that did more damage than the fast fail, meaning even with non-offense based weapons, you still come out ahead, not even counting the resistances, which include +15% MR from the hammer. Not exactly irrelevant.
I am thoroughly confused by this. You keep on comparing weapon damage, and just ignore the +1 APR. Didn't I do the math earlier, showing how that if you factor in the APR gains, the Fast Flail in OH adds more damage than about any weapon in the game, OH or not? Why do you just ignore the APR gains and compare base weapon damage? As for the defensive stats, I stand by my earlier main argument, i.e. that you go the Kensai route in the first place because so much damage is avoidable on your damage dealers. So far in my testing I haven't found a situation where that would not be the case, all the incidental hits you take are minor at best. In light of that, using a defensive weapon over an offensive one seems to me to be inefficient.
If you use a more powerful offensive weapon, like the Shock Flail you will fall further behind. But don't let that stop you, dual where you see fit, its still a question of opinion.
Why is it an opinion? It seems to me that while the offense/defense debate is a different issue, on the issue of DAMAGE it's very clear and backed by math. There is no opinion that one deals more damage than the other, it's just numbers and game mechanics. If you don't want to deal maximum damage for some other reason that is a separate issue, but that doesn't mean that one is not more damage than the other, objectively and free from opinion.
Incidently, we both have been forgetting the best Cleric spell in IWD somehow, Righteous Wrath of the Faithful. Which favours those not using a speed weapon obviously. *shrug*
It seems to me you are forgetting the best spell, period, in the game, which is Improved Haste - and that VERY MUCH cares about APR. It is so much better than RWotF it's not even funny.
Whst numbers?? Really? If you want to argue 'X tactic is better than Y', you ought to put numbers up. Thats called proof. Then everyone can pick away st the numbers, and we see whats what.
I did put numbers up (see above posts). You somehow seem to be ignoring most of them, even simple ones such as "6.5+5". Somehow that just disappears when you reply, I don't know why. Also, I'm just asking for you to specifically say WHICH numbers you would like, and that I'd be happy to provide them. That you seem unable to specify your demands concerns me deeply.
As for scrolls, fine, run 2 Sorcerers. There are plenty of good scrolls for a Bard and two non pure mages.
Wasn't this whole thing about how they're NOT Sorcerers but hybrid mages that can deal damage? Or did I miss something? Still, even with three (!) scroll-scribing mages I doubt there's enough scrolls around to have all the good spells available at all points in the game, and once you start using bad spells, well, that's when inefficiency begins. Again, to clarify, I'm not saying it's NOT POSSIBLE to do these things you say, I'm simply saying that due to the inherent nature of the spell system and the availability of scrolls resp. the lower consistent independent damage output of Sorcerers, damage spells are less efficient overall than melee damage (i.e. less kills/time overall). If you want to pick a statement apart, please take that one.
I think you could get by with 1 Sorcerer, but if you think scrolls are THAT rare, fine, you can still use spell damage to do the job. Scroll Availability in IWD was always problematic in the form of not having the desired higher level scrolls soon enough, aka not an issue if you aren't a pure mage. There isn't a shortage of spells a level or 2 below what a pure mage can cast.
See above. There's definitely an issue with having the right spell at the right time - not an issue with melee, they can always attack, and their damage is always fairly consistent. Sorcerers of course circumvent that issue, but are again in the situation that they lack consistently available damage, i.e. once they run out of good spells their efficiency drops off sharply - and given the high frequency of ambushes while resting, you will most definitely run out eventually (unless you run to safe zones, and then the running is what kills your efficiency).
Spell numbers??? These are adjudted only by ~2 items iirc. But hey, if you weren't aware, a level 10 caster's Fireball does 10d6, with a save for half. Average is 35, saved is 17.5. If you have 10 Wights you are catching in that, its 175 if they all save.
Finally, some numbers! Let's compare. A K9/C10 has 25 STR under DuHM/RM, and 4 APR dual-wielding (unhasted, no APR weapon). That's +14 damage from STR, +2 from Kensai 9, +5 from Grand Mastery = 21 bonus damage. Assume a +1 Morning Star for now (found in Vale), at 2d4+1, for a total of 2d4+22, or 24-30, meaning an average of 27. Times 3 that's 81 damage from the MH per round; let's assume 75% damage from the OH (accounting for lower thac0), that's another 20.25, for a total of 101.25 damage per round. Let's subtract 5% for Critical Misses (at 25 STR you virtually always hit mobs at that level), we get 96.19 damage per round. Lower than the spell damage, right? Right. However, you also have to take into account that this damage ALWAYS happens, no matter what. You don't need to cast, you don't need to fear interruption, you don't need to worry about hitting all the other party members and/or yourself with your Fireball (which you conveniently ignore altogether). Also, spell damage ONLY reaches high numbers against high numbers of enemies. If you're only fighting 5 enemies, you're already down to 87.5/175. Go for single target (boss) and you plummet even further. But the main argument is actually another one: you run out of spells. At lvl 10 a mage can cast 3 fireballs. A Sorcerer can cast 6, but can't be a hybrid. If those 3 fireballs don't kill every enemy you need from now until you've rested, you're in trouble. And given the high incidence of resting ambushes (well over 50% in most areas), I cannot believe that you can just go on without ever resting, not to mention that the resting ambushes are usually not overly large groups, meaning you are forced to do very inefficient damage.
Now, you also mentioned a very interesting scenario, i.e. 5 casters nuking at once. While that works fine in theory, you can't just assume that a nearly full caster party can just run through the game constantly flinging damage spells and not worrying about anything else. You also need defenses, or the next best arrow interrupts your spell and there goes all that damage efficiency. You have lots of good buffs for that, naturally, but those cost time, and time is damage. And then there's the issue of not simply being able to cast Fireballs on top of yourself, because you'll kill your entire party. That means you need some form of tanking, but then THEY are in the way of your fireballs, and since you're dropping 5 at a time, that will roast them quite thoroughly. Now, you could use Protection from Fire I suppose - which works until your Fireballs are gone. And then? Skull Trap is the next most efficient AoE damage spell, and that will go through anything short of Magic Resistance. Ah but of course, you could use summons! More time spent casting non-damage spells, and getting into position. And what about all those times where you face 3 mobs, then 3 mobs again, then another 3 mobs? Or the times when the mobs come in staggered waves, and aren't just all neatly clumped up in a big pile to nuke at once? Every stray mob demands a spell answer, and every spell you spend on small numbers of mobs is horribly inefficient. Sure, spells are great when you have 20 mobs in a pile - but while that does happen, it doesn't happen ALL the time. The more frequent scenario is 3-10 mobs at a time, in short distances from one another. With melee damage, you can just go in-kill-go in-kill. With spells you are either forced to pull a large number and hope you can contain/group them (losing time as you do so), or you are forced to spend spells on small numbers of enemies and make the damage inefficient.
There are no wrong opinions. You trying to argue thst my SUBJECTIVE OPINION is wrong is a bit petty.
I'm not saying "this is wrong!". I'm saying "this here is better", and I'm presenting an argument for it. I believe in opinions, but opinions are neither sacrosanct nor immutable. Heck, I am LOOKING FORWARD to every time I change my opinion, because it means I've learned something new and bettered myself in some way. Just saying "we have our opinions and that's that" is a recipe for disaster because it precludes any and all possibility for constructive discourse. Plus, not everything you make out to be a "subjective opinion" actually is one (see above). Sometimes there's math and data, and that's not an opinion. You can BASE an opinion on those data, but you can't just do away with the data by arguing they are an opinion. I don't believe that a discussion of "I think X, you think Y, that's cool and leave it at that" is useful; it's not even actually a discussion in the first place.
I have regularly tried to point out that despite being mathematically worse, your opinion is very much that, in return you argue. Not sure who you're trying to convince.
You are also conveniently omitting facts left and right, as I've pointed out multiple times. Also, aside from that spell damage debate just now, you haven't actually provided any mathematical evidence anywhere. You've listed some numbers, but ignored half their significance (i.e. specifically the issue of +APR damage gains and OH damage comparisons), or constructed specific scenarios to prove your point, without going into some highly relevant details (see the spell issue above). That's not me being "mathematically worse" I don't think, but do feel free to point out where I missed something.
As for who I'm trying to convince, it's myself, first and foremost. I believe in challenging my beliefs, and the best way to do that is to see them confronted with different beliefs, and evaluate the results. Also, I believe that going into an issue in depth and detail can provide uninvolved spectators with insight of their own. Being presented with a result is not nearly as beneficial to forming your own opinion than it is being confronted with the process that led to these results, I think. Understanding the WHY is usually much more interesting than merely reading the WHAT, too :P
@Lord_Tansheron I didn't say *ANY* of those things you put in those quotes. So I'm gonna do the respectful thing I do in any pointless argument, which is drop it and forget it.
@SharGuidesMyHand : The Kensai will suffer greatest early in the game when no druid can cast barkskin on him, which clerics sadly don't get barkskin in this game. If you do run a Kensai/Monk in your party, a bard or a druid of some sort would probably be ideal so you can protect them with song or spell.
@Lord_Tansheron I didn't say *ANY* of those things you put in those quotes. So I'm gonna do the respectful thing I do in any pointless argument, which is drop it and forget it.
Sincerest apologies, c/p error with the wrong piece of code. Corrected immediately.
Original question in the first post: "any reason Kensai wouldn't do fine pure?"
(This one was you, I double-checked! :P)
As I said, if you're merely asking if you can somehow manage to get through the game, then the answer is "YES!" to anything and everything. If you want more information, and judging by the mere fact that the question was asked in the first place, then we're having a discussion. As such, pure Kensai vs. alternatives is not off-topic, I think. Though I do agree that the whole spellcaster issue in the mix is digression, and perhaps it really is time to get back to a more focused discussion.
I really enjoyed reading this discussion. I'll give my two cents based on my experience with the game and do a little comparison between Pure Kensai, Berserker Cleric (B/C) and Kensai Cleric (K/C). I may be repeating some of the stuff that was already mentioned, but please bare with me.
I for one am not impressed with the "a Pure Kensai has access to better weapons" argument as I have been very satisfied with the morning star / flails/ maces in this game. I use a "Mornings Star +4: Defender" and "Fast Flail +2" on my B/C and get 5 attacks per round, 10 with improved haste. I suppose there are some great combinations with long-swords, bastard swords, and katanas though, but probably not that dramatic.
How much of a bonus do you really get by going Half-Orc Pure Kensai with Ki over a DuHM / Righteous Magic / Holy Power buffed K/C or B/C?
Level 40 Kensai gets +13/+13, subtract Gauntlets of Weapon Expertise for the B/C by +1/+2, for a net +12/+11. Strength difference between 19 and 25 is +4/+7, so now the Pure Kensai gets a net +8/+4 over the B/C unless you use potions which aren't practical to always use as they are limited. If you compare it to a K/C dual-classed at level 13, then the difference would be +5/+1 ([+13/+13] - [+4/+7] (Strength) - [+4/+4] (Kensai Bonus)). Would you give up all cleric spells that at K/C has to offer just for +5 THAC0 and +1 DMG and the ability to use swords? I think that's a horrible trade. Would you give up all cleric spells and the ability to use slings, armor, bracers, and Berserker Rage for +8/+4? Nope, as THAC0 isn't as beneficial as DMG late game and you would STILL NEED A CLERIC on your team or the THAC0/DMG advantages would be even more gimped.
So now it's down (for me at least) to B/C and K/C. B/C allows you to use a sling, wear any armor, and wear any bracer while a K/C cannot equip any of these. B/C also has Berserker Rage, but this is less useful later in the game due to the HoF epic battles that usually last more than one minute, so I would place this as a minor benefit only. To counter all this the K/C gets Ki as well as bonus THAC0/DMG. How much more? It depends on when you dual class, but here are a few scenarios:
If you dual at level 9, you get +3/+3 bonus. If you dual at level 13 you get a +4/+4 Bonus. These bonuses are countered by Gauntlets of Weapon Expertise your B/C would wear by +1/+2. So far you're trading a lot for +3/+2...you do also get some Ki uses which isn't bad...but still not enough in my opinion. If you wanted to max out your Kensai bonuses you could dual as high as level 24 (4 million exp) and get +8/+8, or a net +7/+6 after accounting for Gauntlets of Weapon Expertise...but seriously who would want to do that without Epic Level Abilities? You won't even benefit from your dual class for very long, if you make it there at all. Plus you won't have a decent cleric for most of the game unless someone else covers the role which is a completely different inefficiency all together.
So practically speaking a B/C that duals at level 13 seems to have the most efficient. The B/C gives up +1/+2 and a few uses of Ki compared to a K/C, but gains use of slings, armor, bracers, and Berserker Rage. You can live without a cleric up to level 9 pretty easily, it's a little harder up to level 13 but it's possible especially if you have some kind of druid in the party.
Comments
Why are we back on the direct comparison? Sure 13 deals more damage but it ALSO TAKES A MILLION XP MORE TO GET TO, and another 1.35m to get to C14. Why do you always just ignore that, as though 2.6m XP were just lying around? On my last run I was about 75% through the game at that XP level. This is not something that can just be casually brushed away! Are you telling me that +1dmg/thac0 is seriously worth that much XP? I am thoroughly confused by this. You keep on comparing weapon damage, and just ignore the +1 APR. Didn't I do the math earlier, showing how that if you factor in the APR gains, the Fast Flail in OH adds more damage than about any weapon in the game, OH or not? Why do you just ignore the APR gains and compare base weapon damage?
As for the defensive stats, I stand by my earlier main argument, i.e. that you go the Kensai route in the first place because so much damage is avoidable on your damage dealers. So far in my testing I haven't found a situation where that would not be the case, all the incidental hits you take are minor at best. In light of that, using a defensive weapon over an offensive one seems to me to be inefficient. Why is it an opinion? It seems to me that while the offense/defense debate is a different issue, on the issue of DAMAGE it's very clear and backed by math. There is no opinion that one deals more damage than the other, it's just numbers and game mechanics. If you don't want to deal maximum damage for some other reason that is a separate issue, but that doesn't mean that one is not more damage than the other, objectively and free from opinion. It seems to me you are forgetting the best spell, period, in the game, which is Improved Haste - and that VERY MUCH cares about APR. It is so much better than RWotF it's not even funny. I did put numbers up (see above posts). You somehow seem to be ignoring most of them, even simple ones such as "6.5+5". Somehow that just disappears when you reply, I don't know why. Also, I'm just asking for you to specifically say WHICH numbers you would like, and that I'd be happy to provide them. That you seem unable to specify your demands concerns me deeply. Wasn't this whole thing about how they're NOT Sorcerers but hybrid mages that can deal damage? Or did I miss something? Still, even with three (!) scroll-scribing mages I doubt there's enough scrolls around to have all the good spells available at all points in the game, and once you start using bad spells, well, that's when inefficiency begins. Again, to clarify, I'm not saying it's NOT POSSIBLE to do these things you say, I'm simply saying that due to the inherent nature of the spell system and the availability of scrolls resp. the lower consistent independent damage output of Sorcerers, damage spells are less efficient overall than melee damage (i.e. less kills/time overall). If you want to pick a statement apart, please take that one. See above. There's definitely an issue with having the right spell at the right time - not an issue with melee, they can always attack, and their damage is always fairly consistent. Sorcerers of course circumvent that issue, but are again in the situation that they lack consistently available damage, i.e. once they run out of good spells their efficiency drops off sharply - and given the high frequency of ambushes while resting, you will most definitely run out eventually (unless you run to safe zones, and then the running is what kills your efficiency). Finally, some numbers! Let's compare. A K9/C10 has 25 STR under DuHM/RM, and 4 APR dual-wielding (unhasted, no APR weapon). That's +14 damage from STR, +2 from Kensai 9, +5 from Grand Mastery = 21 bonus damage. Assume a +1 Morning Star for now (found in Vale), at 2d4+1, for a total of 2d4+22, or 24-30, meaning an average of 27. Times 3 that's 81 damage from the MH per round; let's assume 75% damage from the OH (accounting for lower thac0), that's another 20.25, for a total of 101.25 damage per round. Let's subtract 5% for Critical Misses (at 25 STR you virtually always hit mobs at that level), we get 96.19 damage per round.
Lower than the spell damage, right? Right. However, you also have to take into account that this damage ALWAYS happens, no matter what. You don't need to cast, you don't need to fear interruption, you don't need to worry about hitting all the other party members and/or yourself with your Fireball (which you conveniently ignore altogether). Also, spell damage ONLY reaches high numbers against high numbers of enemies. If you're only fighting 5 enemies, you're already down to 87.5/175. Go for single target (boss) and you plummet even further.
But the main argument is actually another one: you run out of spells. At lvl 10 a mage can cast 3 fireballs. A Sorcerer can cast 6, but can't be a hybrid. If those 3 fireballs don't kill every enemy you need from now until you've rested, you're in trouble. And given the high incidence of resting ambushes (well over 50% in most areas), I cannot believe that you can just go on without ever resting, not to mention that the resting ambushes are usually not overly large groups, meaning you are forced to do very inefficient damage.
Now, you also mentioned a very interesting scenario, i.e. 5 casters nuking at once. While that works fine in theory, you can't just assume that a nearly full caster party can just run through the game constantly flinging damage spells and not worrying about anything else. You also need defenses, or the next best arrow interrupts your spell and there goes all that damage efficiency. You have lots of good buffs for that, naturally, but those cost time, and time is damage. And then there's the issue of not simply being able to cast Fireballs on top of yourself, because you'll kill your entire party. That means you need some form of tanking, but then THEY are in the way of your fireballs, and since you're dropping 5 at a time, that will roast them quite thoroughly. Now, you could use Protection from Fire I suppose - which works until your Fireballs are gone. And then? Skull Trap is the next most efficient AoE damage spell, and that will go through anything short of Magic Resistance. Ah but of course, you could use summons! More time spent casting non-damage spells, and getting into position. And what about all those times where you face 3 mobs, then 3 mobs again, then another 3 mobs? Or the times when the mobs come in staggered waves, and aren't just all neatly clumped up in a big pile to nuke at once? Every stray mob demands a spell answer, and every spell you spend on small numbers of mobs is horribly inefficient. Sure, spells are great when you have 20 mobs in a pile - but while that does happen, it doesn't happen ALL the time. The more frequent scenario is 3-10 mobs at a time, in short distances from one another. With melee damage, you can just go in-kill-go in-kill. With spells you are either forced to pull a large number and hope you can contain/group them (losing time as you do so), or you are forced to spend spells on small numbers of enemies and make the damage inefficient. I'm not saying "this is wrong!". I'm saying "this here is better", and I'm presenting an argument for it. I believe in opinions, but opinions are neither sacrosanct nor immutable. Heck, I am LOOKING FORWARD to every time I change my opinion, because it means I've learned something new and bettered myself in some way. Just saying "we have our opinions and that's that" is a recipe for disaster because it precludes any and all possibility for constructive discourse. Plus, not everything you make out to be a "subjective opinion" actually is one (see above). Sometimes there's math and data, and that's not an opinion. You can BASE an opinion on those data, but you can't just do away with the data by arguing they are an opinion. I don't believe that a discussion of "I think X, you think Y, that's cool and leave it at that" is useful; it's not even actually a discussion in the first place. You are also conveniently omitting facts left and right, as I've pointed out multiple times. Also, aside from that spell damage debate just now, you haven't actually provided any mathematical evidence anywhere. You've listed some numbers, but ignored half their significance (i.e. specifically the issue of +APR damage gains and OH damage comparisons), or constructed specific scenarios to prove your point, without going into some highly relevant details (see the spell issue above). That's not me being "mathematically worse" I don't think, but do feel free to point out where I missed something.
As for who I'm trying to convince, it's myself, first and foremost. I believe in challenging my beliefs, and the best way to do that is to see them confronted with different beliefs, and evaluate the results. Also, I believe that going into an issue in depth and detail can provide uninvolved spectators with insight of their own. Being presented with a result is not nearly as beneficial to forming your own opinion than it is being confronted with the process that led to these results, I think. Understanding the WHY is usually much more interesting than merely reading the WHAT, too :P
@SharGuidesMyHand : The Kensai will suffer greatest early in the game when no druid can cast barkskin on him, which clerics sadly don't get barkskin in this game. If you do run a Kensai/Monk in your party, a bard or a druid of some sort would probably be ideal so you can protect them with song or spell.
As I said, if you're merely asking if you can somehow manage to get through the game, then the answer is "YES!" to anything and everything. If you want more information, and judging by the mere fact that the question was asked in the first place, then we're having a discussion. As such, pure Kensai vs. alternatives is not off-topic, I think. Though I do agree that the whole spellcaster issue in the mix is digression, and perhaps it really is time to get back to a more focused discussion.
I for one am not impressed with the "a Pure Kensai has access to better weapons" argument as I have been very satisfied with the morning star / flails/ maces in this game. I use a "Mornings Star +4: Defender" and "Fast Flail +2" on my B/C and get 5 attacks per round, 10 with improved haste. I suppose there are some great combinations with long-swords, bastard swords, and katanas though, but probably not that dramatic.
How much of a bonus do you really get by going Half-Orc Pure Kensai with Ki over a DuHM / Righteous Magic / Holy Power buffed K/C or B/C?
Level 40 Kensai gets +13/+13, subtract Gauntlets of Weapon Expertise for the B/C by +1/+2, for a net +12/+11. Strength difference between 19 and 25 is +4/+7, so now the Pure Kensai gets a net +8/+4 over the B/C unless you use potions which aren't practical to always use as they are limited. If you compare it to a K/C dual-classed at level 13, then the difference would be +5/+1 ([+13/+13] - [+4/+7] (Strength) - [+4/+4] (Kensai Bonus)). Would you give up all cleric spells that at K/C has to offer just for +5 THAC0 and +1 DMG and the ability to use swords? I think that's a horrible trade. Would you give up all cleric spells and the ability to use slings, armor, bracers, and Berserker Rage for +8/+4? Nope, as THAC0 isn't as beneficial as DMG late game and you would STILL NEED A CLERIC on your team or the THAC0/DMG advantages would be even more gimped.
So now it's down (for me at least) to B/C and K/C. B/C allows you to use a sling, wear any armor, and wear any bracer while a K/C cannot equip any of these. B/C also has Berserker Rage, but this is less useful later in the game due to the HoF epic battles that usually last more than one minute, so I would place this as a minor benefit only. To counter all this the K/C gets Ki as well as bonus THAC0/DMG. How much more? It depends on when you dual class, but here are a few scenarios:
If you dual at level 9, you get +3/+3 bonus. If you dual at level 13 you get a +4/+4 Bonus. These bonuses are countered by Gauntlets of Weapon Expertise your B/C would wear by +1/+2. So far you're trading a lot for +3/+2...you do also get some Ki uses which isn't bad...but still not enough in my opinion. If you wanted to max out your Kensai bonuses you could dual as high as level 24 (4 million exp) and get +8/+8, or a net +7/+6 after accounting for Gauntlets of Weapon Expertise...but seriously who would want to do that without Epic Level Abilities? You won't even benefit from your dual class for very long, if you make it there at all. Plus you won't have a decent cleric for most of the game unless someone else covers the role which is a completely different inefficiency all together.
So practically speaking a B/C that duals at level 13 seems to have the most efficient. The B/C gives up +1/+2 and a few uses of Ki compared to a K/C, but gains use of slings, armor, bracers, and Berserker Rage. You can live without a cleric up to level 9 pretty easily, it's a little harder up to level 13 but it's possible especially if you have some kind of druid in the party.