except if you run into Dispel Magic... then you're screwed... lol. I think this is especially true with SCS or such mods that improve the AI of monsters. Sure, if you play the base game on Normal its a cake walk but thats true for any class for the most part...Throw in some added difficulty and improved monster reaction and its not so much fun anymore. The big minus for me of the system is that it allows you to cast buffs pre-combat which in itself is a huge advantage especially if you have metagame knowledge (you know what to expect and what buffs you need). It would be much more difficult for a first time player for instance... and then theres the whole rest abuse issue. If your resting then you have to be much "smarter" to how you use your buffs. But thats a whole other can of worms i guess...
except if you run into Dispel Magic... then you're screwed...
I see this a lot, yet mage encounters are comparatively rare, often signposted far beyond requiring a decent memory to take advantage of, and Spell Immunity lasts a minimum of nine rounds, which is more than enough to focus fire down most mages who waste their time casting "Dispel Magic". Even for an F/M/T they'll have a level 5 spell at level 9/405k exp, and two at level 10/750k exp, meaning earlier spell access than a bard to an unbreakable solution to dispelling with the weakest casting multiclass.
Also, if the multiclass in question is actually making enemy mages waste rounds on "dispel magic" rather than "Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion", that's arguably a greater contribution to the combat than your average fighter just by existing.
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.
You're right, but my point was probably not expressed clearly enough, what I meant (and what I had in my head whilst typing) was that fighters are so easy to make tanky enough that there's no need for fancy magics. I mean, for 99% of all fights high AC and high HP is enough if combined with a good damage output. Stopping to throw on three buffs and resting in between most fights (in BG1 where spell slots are scarce) becomes redundant.
And you don't even have to scavenge for great items until late game since all you really need is a good armor and a good weapon, everything else is just gravy. And being a berserker, which is my main point here, is enough to make you pretty much unkillable. There are items that can compliment on the last 1% of the fights that need them, and then in ToB you get the HLA's to tackle that as well.
To me, the best fighter is a Fighter with berzerker kit and the more I play this game, the more I value leveling as single class (not that I play much SC though, what I value and what I do are different things, hehe).
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.
But that's the thing: with a fighter/mage in BG2 you don't need to acquire this and that item, because (short of a certain room at a remote location) arcane spells can protect your character from just about everything. The best spell protections: mirror image, stoneskin, improved invisibility, spell immunity, protection from magical weapons are all mid-level spells, which means you don't have to wait that long before your f/m can use it. You don't even have to hunt down magical weapons, because melfs meteores will do in a pinch.
I agree to some extent of course, but I don't think you understood my point. I hope my response to DevardKrown above made it more clear what I meant, that SC Fighters (berserkers) don't NEED the items except for a few times since their thac0, HP, AC and saves are enough to browse through most encounters. The items are great ofc but if you are a singleclassed fighter smashing all enemies to pieces, leave the magery to mages who then can level as SC as well and become stupidly powerful.
If you would have asked me a couple of years ago, I'd rather have taken a F and a F/M, a FM and a FM or a FM and a M over a F and M. Nowdays, I'd much rather take Korgan, Edwin and play a thief than to have a F/M and jan jensen. It's more and more obvious to me that in ToB you start to quickly realize how much stronger SC classes become, and yes, this includes SC Fighters since they keep getting good HLA and can focus on just bashing things to pieces and live to tell the tale.
Now, to be clear, I never play SC charnames though. I love multiclasses and play them always exclusively, but when i reach ToB I find myself thinking, damn.. I should have chosen one of them :P
The worst part of pure mages is their uselessness after discharging too many / essential spells. A pure mage can't do much by him/herself, so at least one or two fighters are needed to put in the muscle work. This of course leads to the aforementioned abuse of the resting mechanics.
I don't think it's possible to solo a dungeon (even a simple one, like the introductory piece in BG2) with a mage without resting several times - and at level 8-9 you might not even manage to for lack of wands and offensive spells.
A fighter could solo that first dungeon easily. A fighter/mage is guaranteed to solo it (but I can't guarantee the F/M won't need to sleep at least once to get some of his/her buffs back).
I know D&D is a game of cooperation between amazing individual characters, and it doesn't hurt to have one or two NPC mage(s) ride along in the back just in case you might need it, but the main protagonist of the series - CHARNAME - should FEEL like a badass otherwise it's a huge turn off for me. Kinda sucks to have a CHARNAME you invested time and creativity on to just sit in the back while the NPCs take care of business.
Fighter/Mages are obviously very powerful, BUT, IMO they inevitably lead t too much meta-gaming, because so much of their power relies on pre-buffs.
My favorite fighter types are the following:
Pure Kensai Dwarf (Daggers, Axes, War Hammers) (Do a lot of throwing, but also a lot of melee. I play it about 50/50 throwing and melee) Barbarian Dwarf (Flails, War Hammers, Axes) (Better than DDs IMO) Stalker Elf (Longbow, Long Sword, Short Bow, Short Sword, Quarterstaff) (This is a very fun character and versatile character) Pure Ranger Elf (Longbow, Longsword, Short Bow, Flail, War Hammer) (Similar to Stalker, but more tanky)
I like Pure Rangers and Stalkers over Archers actually, because they are a lot better in melee when needed. I typically play Rangers as archers, with situational melee. I have fun with Rangers because I'm always changing up their role based on the situation. The only challenge is I don't like necessarily giving them the best melee weapons because they spend a lot of time at range. For Pure Rangers I tend to play them about 70% ranged, 30% melee. For Stalkers it's more like 80% ranged and not too much melee other than Backstabs and missile resistant enemies.
Anyway, I find these more fun than Fighter/Mages...
@chimaera True, there is spell immunity. But the gist of the problem for me boils down to what someone mentioned earlier. Id rather not play a class that requires that I metagame. Let's assume for a second that I'm playing the game for the first time... How would I know which buffs to pre-cast for each encounter if I don't know what I'll be facing? A character that has to die and reload to beat an encounter doesn't feel very epic compared to one that can just do it's job irrespective of the situation (except stuff like basilisks that one shot you without the appropriate buff ofc). But then I don't play multi-class charnames ever and rarely pick multi-classed companions unless one of the classes is just filler for outside of combat (like I'd sometimes pick jaheira but only ever load her with healing and buffs and in combat she'd act like a typical fighter). I try to build parties where every member has as distinct a role as possible. I'd typically pick only one divine caster, one mage type, one thief, maybe a bard to mix things up and so on. Warriors are those that i typically have more of... Mostly one warrior and one paladin or maybe a ranger etc. But I guess that's a matter of RP for me as in any fantasy setting it makes sense for me that there are many more warriors (anyone can swing a sword right?) than there are wizards for instance. It's my personal brand of OCD...lol.
Dispel magic is a potential vulnerability for sure, but it's getting way overblown in this discussion. Most mobs don't include a caster, for one thing. For another, FMTs generally cast pre-buffs followed by invisibility which then enables them to backstab the softest target in the mob, which will be a mage if there happens to be one. With the enemy mage down for the count there's no need to worry about a dispel magic; even if he's not down for the count, a FMT will have enough attacks per round to virtually ensure the enemy mage can't cast dispel magic or anything else for that matter. Even if the enemy mage somehow does manage to cast dispel magic, it isn't automatic that the dispel will be successful. Even if somehow every single pre-buff on the FMT is dispelled, he still has all the melee abilities of a FT which would be more than enough to chunk the mage. And if not, all the FMT has to do is simply cast invisibility, after which he can either retreat back to the rest of his party or do another backstab.
I also don't follow why it's an asset that paladins can't buff themselves and hence don't need to worry about dispel magic. That's like saying you'd rather not be Superman because his buffs can be dispelled by kryptonite, which is true but not especially relevant to the question of who's the stronger character.
@jsaving that's all well and good mate but that still doesn't account for what I was taking about earlier re the need for metagame knowledge. You wouldn't know what buffs to use of you didn't have that or you'd have to waste at least a little time to cast them in which time the enemy casters and fighters can go at you. Personally I prefer to RP it rather then abuse the sometimes stupid AI (since a lot of times monster script runs on sightlines and such)... That's just cheesing my way through. But even if we ignore that for a moment... What's the upside for me if I have to stack all those buffs on me to be competent at my role when I can just buff up someone like Dorn who already had immunity to fear and negative plane and can use poison weapon (from invis potentially) or a Korgan with his berserk on top of the buffs and go to town with them?! I'd rather my character be super specialized in his role and what he does. I know multi-classes can get super OP towards the very end of ToB but that's very late for my taste for one thing and for another I don't like the idea of being OP in the first place... Competent in my role yes, but not to the point of the ridiculous. In my view that is one of the problems of the multi-class system in D&D... There is too little trade off... For me you should have to give up on raw power (not just need more time/exp) for the added flexibility. Not saying my way is right by any means but I have certain barriers in my head that I won't cross if I think something is poorly implemented... I try not to abuse or cheese my way through... Like I said, it's my OCD
Of course there are exceptions, but in my opinion a fighter has no advanatage here, because encounters that require some meta-gaming are those, where an enemy has a special ability that can easily kill your characters. And in this case any class will be in trouble if they don't know how to counter that.
As was discussed a bit earlier in the thread the single class fighter has an advantage in this situation due to their better saving throws. A dwarven fighter with 225k would have a spell saving throw of 1, compared to 8 for a fighter/mage. Add in equipment bonuses and the straight fighter has little to worry about from status effects - while the F/M has to be buffed.
For what it's worth, this is my current dualled fighter/mage (the party has just reached the Underdark) who can cast Breach etc. and then charge in as a secondary tank (note the damage output and apr).
P.S. Blame Roger Waters for the name - I was listening to Radio Kaos at the time.
I soloed most of BG (without SoD) as a straight fighter then dualled in Irenicus' dungeon. Iirc I reached mage 10 after the Circus Tent and Freeing Hendak quests (with the help of Jahiera, who I dropped when I got my fighter skills back). It helped that I was memorising every scroll I could get my hands on.
I soloed most of BG (without SoD) as a straight fighter then dualled in Irenicus' dungeon. Iirc I reached mage 10 after the Circus Tent and Freeing Hendak quests (with the help of Jahiera, who I dropped when I got my fighter skills back). It helped that I was memorising every scroll I could get my hands on.
Just to clarify: how long after Irenicus was that? I haven't played BG2, yet. Hence the dilemma of what character to replay BG1 with. Is it like a matter of 2-3 hours into SoA or much later?
@tbone1 , The inimitable Bernie Koppel! Siegfried, Samantha's apothecary, and the ship's doctor, all rolled into one talented actor. He was a fixture of my youth.
@jsaving that's all well and good mate but that still doesn't account for what I was taking about earlier re the need for metagame knowledge. You wouldn't know what buffs to use of you didn't have that or you'd have to waste at least a little time to cast them in which time the enemy casters and fighters can go at you.
I would suggest that you are vastly overstating the need for metagame knowledge to know which buffs to prepare ahead of time, and the degree of scouting and/or paying cursory attention to the plot to determine what specialist situation is coming up.
Far from foreknowledge of what encounters to expect, it is understanding which spells are universally valuable and applicable in most situations (and therefore having a solid "default" spell selection) that is the biggest hurdle for a new player, and mastering that is what makes spellcasters and their multiclasses so overwhelmingly potent compared to everything and everyone else in D&D.
For the rest of your points:
1: What's the upside for me if I have to stack all those buffs on me to be competent at my role...
This is a misconception. A Mage is already competent, these buffs make them the best at their role. Or someone else's role, for that matter.
2: I'd rather my character be super specialized in his role and what he does.
A: The more mages you have, the more specialised, and therefore even better, they can be, because they have other mages to fill any gaps.
B: A multiclass character can easily be more specialised than fighter, since they can have more resources with which to specialise. A fighter/mage/thief with all their spells focused on buffing and tanking is both more specialised, and more competent, than a fighter who wishes to perform the same role.
3: I know multi-classes can get super OP towards the very end of ToB
The problem isn't multiclassing, the problem is magic. Being anything except pure mage is making you less OP by definition with maybe three exceptions, and it doesn't take until ToB either, Mages, and their multiclasses, are rock solid in BG1, and outright dominating by mid BG2.
The other problem is that it's not that multiclassing is good, it's that fighters and thieves are just bad. Fighters peak at level 13 and stop significantly improving, Thieves peak around the same, maybe a little higher. Sacrificing caster levels to hurts, because spells are powerful, sacrificing peon levels is a no brainer, because 1 THAC0 is less valuable than a single spell.
4: "Competent in my role."
The single classed warrior type is the least competent, least necessary team member in a given team. Spellcasters can summon decent, or outright superior, lowly peons with a single spell, with Animate Dead in BG1, Mordenkainen's Sword in BG2, and Planetars out the Wazoo in ToB, all of which do as good or better a job at being chaff as a fighter with the added perk of being entirely expendable and requiring fewer resources overall.
@Volatile Not long at all in terms of the greater scheme of the game (maybe an hour or so) but bear in mind that I do know the game quite well and had very specific XP-garnering goals in mind.
@jsaving that's all well and good mate but that still doesn't account for what I was taking about earlier re the need for metagame knowledge. You wouldn't know what buffs to use of you didn't have that or you'd have to waste at least a little time to cast them in which time the enemy casters and fighters can go at you.
I would suggest that you are vastly overstating the need for metagame knowledge to know which buffs to prepare ahead of time, and the degree of scouting and/or paying cursory attention to the plot to determine what specialist situation is coming up.
Far from foreknowledge of what encounters to expect, it is understanding which spells are universally valuable and applicable in most situations (and therefore having a solid "default" spell selection) that is the biggest hurdle for a new player, and mastering that is what makes spellcasters and their multiclasses so overwhelmingly potent compared to everything and everyone else in D&D.
For the rest of your points:
1: What's the upside for me if I have to stack all those buffs on me to be competent at my role...
This is a misconception. A Mage is already competent, these buffs make them the best at their role. Or someone else's role, for that matter.
2: I'd rather my character be super specialized in his role and what he does.
A: The more mages you have, the more specialised, and therefore even better, they can be, because they have other mages to fill any gaps.
B: A multiclass character can easily be more specialised than fighter, since they can have more resources with which to specialise. A fighter/mage/thief with all their spells focused on buffing and tanking is both more specialised, and more competent, than a fighter who wishes to perform the same role.
3: I know multi-classes can get super OP towards the very end of ToB
The problem isn't multiclassing, the problem is magic. Being anything except pure mage is making you less OP by definition with maybe three exceptions, and it doesn't take until ToB either, Mages, and their multiclasses, are rock solid in BG1, and outright dominating by mid BG2.
The other problem is that it's not that multiclassing is good, it's that fighters and thieves are just bad. Fighters peak at level 13 and stop significantly improving, Thieves peak around the same, maybe a little higher. Sacrificing caster levels to hurts, because spells are powerful, sacrificing peon levels is a no brainer, because 1 THAC0 is less valuable than a single spell.
4: "Competent in my role."
The single classed warrior type is the least competent, least necessary team member in a given team. Spellcasters can summon decent, or outright superior, lowly peons with a single spell, with Animate Dead in BG1, Mordenkainen's Sword in BG2, and Planetars out the Wazoo in ToB, all of which do as good or better a job at being chaff as a fighter with the added perk of being entirely expendable and requiring fewer resources overall.
Well.. to be fair, all of this is based entirely on meta.
The first 2-3 times playing these games, it would be extremely abnormal to have this kind of focus and detailed knowledge of what does what.
What you state is based on everything you know about item availability, spells needed, monsters you meet, and game mechanics.
Go back 20 years and sit down with the game for the very first time, and you'd be probably be better off playing a paladin or fighter/thief rather than a mage/sorcerer.
Yeeees.. we all know mages are superior, bla bla bla.. but only if you know what you're doing, what spells to stack and when to do so. If you're a casual, playing this game a couple of times - like normal people do - mages won't be percieved as very OP at all. That said, i've been playing these damn games for 20 years and i -still- prefer to -not- play mages, simply for the fact that they're boring and time consuming.. i usually have one tag along to be a Breach-machine, toss a few improved haste or just offer some npc banter.
The problem of a pure fighter is by the time you are into ToB almost all of the major encounters will be hitting you on rolls of 2 and doing major damage, so unless you have barbarian/DD (barb is super-useful for the free backstab immunity) you just get flat out rekt by melee damage and have to pop Hardiness/defense stance every fight.
Now you change that single class fighter to a dual or multi-class mage and you can make yourself completely immune to the vast majority of the melee damage thrown your way with Prot.Magic weapons, and can stack a stoneskin behind that for the times recasting is delayed and you are vulnerable. Even if you cast nothing else except those 2 spells you're basically giving up a relatively small amount of HP's to negate almost all melee damage and most of the time those extra HP's wouldn't keep you up anyway. On top of that you have a huge list of additional buffing that can make you immune to practically anything thrown your way, not to mention being able to summon additional temporary help and flat out destroy stuff with magical damage/effects should you decide to memorize certain combinations of spells.
I agree that mages require more meta-gaming, but if you have played the games from start to ToB you *should* have at least a half decent idea of what spells are worth casting, certainly low-mid level spells. Admittedly it can be rough 1st few times in ToB because you have little experience with the highest level spells, plus you have limited numbers of them to throw about.
Don't get me wrong i do love fighters, but a single class (even kitted) fighter is severely limited. I have taken many through the games solo and whilst it is possible, perhaps even relatively easy with encounter knowledge, to complete most of chapter 2 in SoA, i tend to do a late dual-class to either mage or thief and the rest of the game is exponentially easier. My favourite play throughs have been 39 Kensai > Mage, 39 Wizard Slayer > Thief and 39 Barbarian > Mage. In my experience a level 12 mage (usually around what i reach straight after dual'ing and memorizing saved up scrolls) using wands and tactical spell slinging can finish off Ch2/3 and head to Spellhold without problem. By the time i'm through underdark Bhaalspawn is a veritable God of Destruction, strolling out into the welcome daylight with 100's of Drow deaths claimed, Adalon's blood securely bottled up and seriously considering laying waste to the Elves for having the cheek to imply that i may have "fled" the Drow rather than casually left after sifting through an entire cities worth of loot.
As was discussed a bit earlier in the thread the single class fighter has an advantage in this situation due to their better saving throws. A dwarven fighter with 225k would have a spell saving throw of 1, compared to 8 for a fighter/mage. Add in equipment bonuses and the straight fighter has little to worry about from status effects - while the F/M has to be buffed.
Not every enemy effect grants a saving throw. Keeping it spoiler free, but I'm sure you are familiar with certain enemies that can easily kill a dumb character in BG2. (And while I agree a dwarven berserker gets the best saving throws, a gnomish f/i gets some bonuses too, can use all the fighter & mage equipment, and spell protections.)
At least @Grond0 got my point. Sometimes it seems that the OPness of negative saves doesn't get the attention it deserves. Dwarf berzerker or F/C get's the best saves possible and that means they are immune to pretty much anything that is thrown at them. AoE spells or direct damage spells does little damage since they will save for half all the time and with some damage reduce items on them, it means the damage is so pitiful you won't notice it. You also have HP regen, although slow of course.
@chimeara, it's very easy to not die from those 'certain enemies'. Personally I like to use throwing weapons, of which there are several great ones such as +2/+3 axe and +2 warhammer, but you can also couple it with a potion if you want. Your high saves also make you 'immune' against their mind tricks that can stun a lesser prepared adventurer.
Well.. to be fair, all of this is based entirely on meta.
What you state is based on everything you know about item availability, spells needed, monsters you meet, and game mechanics.
Game system mastery, by definition, is not metaknowledge. The meta is something above and beyond the game system, like the idea that a game has 95% fire using enemies and 5% ice, therefore the otherwise equal "ice/fire" spells are given disproportionate value due to the meta.
Item Availability: Misguided statement, no class depends on items to be relevant as much as a Fighter.
Monsters you meet: Most encounters are not secret, do not require any special strategies, and do not prevent retreat or scouting. Any enounters that do involve something special will spank you anyway until you learn the trick or muddle through, but generally reading through a spellbook for an important buff you didn't consider versus "search the shops for the magic shield of Balduran" is not a question of metaknowledge, nor is understanding that mages are the greatest threats you will ever face in D&D, especially after first hand experience getting your pantaloons handed to you by them.
As for the idea that you'd be better off with a fighter than a mage with no system knowledge? By the time you've got out of Candlekeep you have mastered the class already, and you're shooting yourself in the foot for the rest of the game since there are plenty of front line NPCs available without the inbuilt downside of giving a gameover when they're inevitably focus fired, unlucky critted, or fail a save, and having a different, more complex class can actually give some room to learn new tricks as you progress through the long, long game through to ToB.
Comments
Also, if the multiclass in question is actually making enemy mages waste rounds on "dispel magic" rather than "Spiked Tentacles of Forced Intrusion", that's arguably a greater contribution to the combat than your average fighter just by existing.
And you don't even have to scavenge for great items until late game since all you really need is a good armor and a good weapon, everything else is just gravy. And being a berserker, which is my main point here, is enough to make you pretty much unkillable. There are items that can compliment on the last 1% of the fights that need them, and then in ToB you get the HLA's to tackle that as well.
To me, the best fighter is a Fighter with berzerker kit and the more I play this game, the more I value leveling as single class (not that I play much SC though, what I value and what I do are different things, hehe).
I agree to some extent of course, but I don't think you understood my point. I hope my response to DevardKrown above made it more clear what I meant, that SC Fighters (berserkers) don't NEED the items except for a few times since their thac0, HP, AC and saves are enough to browse through most encounters. The items are great ofc but if you are a singleclassed fighter smashing all enemies to pieces, leave the magery to mages who then can level as SC as well and become stupidly powerful.
If you would have asked me a couple of years ago, I'd rather have taken a F and a F/M, a FM and a FM or a FM and a M over a F and M. Nowdays, I'd much rather take Korgan, Edwin and play a thief than to have a F/M and jan jensen. It's more and more obvious to me that in ToB you start to quickly realize how much stronger SC classes become, and yes, this includes SC Fighters since they keep getting good HLA and can focus on just bashing things to pieces and live to tell the tale.
Now, to be clear, I never play SC charnames though. I love multiclasses and play them always exclusively, but when i reach ToB I find myself thinking, damn.. I should have chosen one of them :P
Cheers!
I don't think it's possible to solo a dungeon (even a simple one, like the introductory piece in BG2) with a mage without resting several times - and at level 8-9 you might not even manage to for lack of wands and offensive spells.
A fighter could solo that first dungeon easily. A fighter/mage is guaranteed to solo it (but I can't guarantee the F/M won't need to sleep at least once to get some of his/her buffs back).
I know D&D is a game of cooperation between amazing individual characters, and it doesn't hurt to have one or two NPC mage(s) ride along in the back just in case you might need it, but the main protagonist of the series - CHARNAME - should FEEL like a badass otherwise it's a huge turn off for me. Kinda sucks to have a CHARNAME you invested time and creativity on to just sit in the back while the NPCs take care of business.
My favorite fighter types are the following:
Pure Kensai Dwarf (Daggers, Axes, War Hammers) (Do a lot of throwing, but also a lot of melee. I play it about 50/50 throwing and melee)
Barbarian Dwarf (Flails, War Hammers, Axes) (Better than DDs IMO)
Stalker Elf (Longbow, Long Sword, Short Bow, Short Sword, Quarterstaff) (This is a very fun character and versatile character)
Pure Ranger Elf (Longbow, Longsword, Short Bow, Flail, War Hammer) (Similar to Stalker, but more tanky)
I like Pure Rangers and Stalkers over Archers actually, because they are a lot better in melee when needed. I typically play Rangers as archers, with situational melee. I have fun with Rangers because I'm always changing up their role based on the situation. The only challenge is I don't like necessarily giving them the best melee weapons because they spend a lot of time at range. For Pure Rangers I tend to play them about 70% ranged, 30% melee. For Stalkers it's more like 80% ranged and not too much melee other than Backstabs and missile resistant enemies.
Anyway, I find these more fun than Fighter/Mages...
I also don't follow why it's an asset that paladins can't buff themselves and hence don't need to worry about dispel magic. That's like saying you'd rather not be Superman because his buffs can be dispelled by kryptonite, which is true but not especially relevant to the question of who's the stronger character.
P.S. Blame Roger Waters for the name - I was listening to Radio Kaos at the time.
Far from foreknowledge of what encounters to expect, it is understanding which spells are universally valuable and applicable in most situations (and therefore having a solid "default" spell selection) that is the biggest hurdle for a new player, and mastering that is what makes spellcasters and their multiclasses so overwhelmingly potent compared to everything and everyone else in D&D.
For the rest of your points:
1: What's the upside for me if I have to stack all those buffs on me to be competent at my role...
This is a misconception. A Mage is already competent, these buffs make them the best at their role. Or someone else's role, for that matter.
2: I'd rather my character be super specialized in his role and what he does.
A: The more mages you have, the more specialised, and therefore even better, they can be, because they have other mages to fill any gaps.
B: A multiclass character can easily be more specialised than fighter, since they can have more resources with which to specialise. A fighter/mage/thief with all their spells focused on buffing and tanking is both more specialised, and more competent, than a fighter who wishes to perform the same role.
3: I know multi-classes can get super OP towards the very end of ToB
The problem isn't multiclassing, the problem is magic. Being anything except pure mage is making you less OP by definition with maybe three exceptions, and it doesn't take until ToB either, Mages, and their multiclasses, are rock solid in BG1, and outright dominating by mid BG2.
The other problem is that it's not that multiclassing is good, it's that fighters and thieves are just bad. Fighters peak at level 13 and stop significantly improving, Thieves peak around the same, maybe a little higher. Sacrificing caster levels to hurts, because spells are powerful, sacrificing peon levels is a no brainer, because 1 THAC0 is less valuable than a single spell.
4: "Competent in my role."
The single classed warrior type is the least competent, least necessary team member in a given team. Spellcasters can summon decent, or outright superior, lowly peons with a single spell, with Animate Dead in BG1, Mordenkainen's Sword in BG2, and Planetars out the Wazoo in ToB, all of which do as good or better a job at being chaff as a fighter with the added perk of being entirely expendable and requiring fewer resources overall.
The first 2-3 times playing these games, it would be extremely abnormal to have this kind of focus and detailed knowledge of what does what.
What you state is based on everything you know about item availability, spells needed, monsters you meet, and game mechanics.
Go back 20 years and sit down with the game for the very first time, and you'd be probably be better off playing a paladin or fighter/thief rather than a mage/sorcerer.
Yeeees.. we all know mages are superior, bla bla bla.. but only if you know what you're doing, what spells to stack and when to do so. If you're a casual, playing this game a couple of times - like normal people do - mages won't be percieved as very OP at all.
That said, i've been playing these damn games for 20 years and i -still- prefer to -not- play mages, simply for the fact that they're boring and time consuming.. i usually have one tag along to be a Breach-machine, toss a few improved haste or just offer some npc banter.
Now you change that single class fighter to a dual or multi-class mage and you can make yourself completely immune to the vast majority of the melee damage thrown your way with Prot.Magic weapons, and can stack a stoneskin behind that for the times recasting is delayed and you are vulnerable. Even if you cast nothing else except those 2 spells you're basically giving up a relatively small amount of HP's to negate almost all melee damage and most of the time those extra HP's wouldn't keep you up anyway. On top of that you have a huge list of additional buffing that can make you immune to practically anything thrown your way, not to mention being able to summon additional temporary help and flat out destroy stuff with magical damage/effects should you decide to memorize certain combinations of spells.
I agree that mages require more meta-gaming, but if you have played the games from start to ToB you *should* have at least a half decent idea of what spells are worth casting, certainly low-mid level spells. Admittedly it can be rough 1st few times in ToB because you have little experience with the highest level spells, plus you have limited numbers of them to throw about.
Don't get me wrong i do love fighters, but a single class (even kitted) fighter is severely limited. I have taken many through the games solo and whilst it is possible, perhaps even relatively easy with encounter knowledge, to complete most of chapter 2 in SoA, i tend to do a late dual-class to either mage or thief and the rest of the game is exponentially easier. My favourite play throughs have been 39 Kensai > Mage, 39 Wizard Slayer > Thief and 39 Barbarian > Mage. In my experience a level 12 mage (usually around what i reach straight after dual'ing and memorizing saved up scrolls) using wands and tactical spell slinging can finish off Ch2/3 and head to Spellhold without problem. By the time i'm through underdark Bhaalspawn is a veritable God of Destruction, strolling out into the welcome daylight with 100's of Drow deaths claimed, Adalon's blood securely bottled up and seriously considering laying waste to the Elves for having the cheek to imply that i may have "fled" the Drow rather than casually left after sifting through an entire cities worth of loot.
@chimeara, it's very easy to not die from those 'certain enemies'. Personally I like to use throwing weapons, of which there are several great ones such as +2/+3 axe and +2 warhammer, but you can also couple it with a potion if you want. Your high saves also make you 'immune' against their mind tricks that can stun a lesser prepared adventurer.
Item Availability: Misguided statement, no class depends on items to be relevant as much as a Fighter.
Monsters you meet: Most encounters are not secret, do not require any special strategies, and do not prevent retreat or scouting. Any enounters that do involve something special will spank you anyway until you learn the trick or muddle through, but generally reading through a spellbook for an important buff you didn't consider versus "search the shops for the magic shield of Balduran" is not a question of metaknowledge, nor is understanding that mages are the greatest threats you will ever face in D&D, especially after first hand experience getting your pantaloons handed to you by them.
As for the idea that you'd be better off with a fighter than a mage with no system knowledge? By the time you've got out of Candlekeep you have mastered the class already, and you're shooting yourself in the foot for the rest of the game since there are plenty of front line NPCs available without the inbuilt downside of giving a gameover when they're inevitably focus fired, unlucky critted, or fail a save, and having a different, more complex class can actually give some room to learn new tricks as you progress through the long, long game through to ToB.