Damn that Bard class sucks, who wants to be a dancing goon? same with the barbarian, weak ass version of a fighter, 2 proficiencies? what? and the sorcerer? how many spells can you gte like five?

Please explain to me what's weak about the Barbarian class. Am I missing something or are you missing something?

Agreed, Sorcerers and Blades are complete gimps. Sorceror.. GREAT early on.. SUCKS later. Too often do I need multiples in a level and then have to wait 3 levels to actually MEM 2 spells in the level..*sigh*.. it's why I restarted from Chapter 6..

Blades.. So far the Bard I have is good for one thing. Not having to memorize Identify.

just get the glasses of identification. way cooler.
and yes the barabrian sucks. its a cheap berserker.

Maybe if you could dual a Sorcerer coz as a low class wizard he's very usefull
and and you could dual him to a fighter or cleric

I did a LOT of testing with these kits and I found the following useless:
1. Swashbuckler. no backstab, no reason to be a thief. A fighter with find traps? Hell, just be a fighter/thief.
2. Monk. deceptively cool, but low hps, bad AC, and you have to wait until the end of chap 4 for the guants of crushing (if you find them) to get a decent weapon that hits "immunity" creatures. Has "find traps" ability, but can't remove them. Waste. This char is only good for chaps 1 and 2 since you are kind of effective w/o any items.
3. Bard. I never understood this class in traditional AD&D and it still makes no sense. Bard song is a luxury in a game you can't afford to have luxuries in.
4. Sorcerer. less spells. Why would you want this? Only good if you have a game you never find a scroll in.
5. Barb. well, I love the mass HPs, but to not be able to go above 2 specializations totally sucks. They should be able to specialize (advanced) in one weapon only or something - no ranged weapons, only melee weapons - kind of the opposite of an Archer (see below).
6. Wizard Slayer. Can you say useless? Can't use magic items except weapons and armor. Man, is this class useless.
7. Archer. This class should be a fighter class, not a ranger class. The fact that everyone thinks "rangers" and "archers" are sysnonomous is kinda silly. I'd rather be able to go full specialization in bows AS WELL as getting some added benefit, and eliminate my specialization in melee weapons. Also, since there are almost no decent longbows/composite bows in this game (the best are short bows), you probably would have selected the wrong type of bow to specialize in your first time through, heh.
8. Assasin. This char only gets poison. He should get an additional backstab modifier and have a penalty to "find/remove traps" abilities.
9. Paladins. Except for the presence on the Holy Avenger, a fighter is much more useful with his added specialization. "Dispel Magic" ability of the inquisitor is very nice at 2X the level, but not good enough (IMO) to overcome the lack of advanced specialization. The Holy Avenger makes this class useful, but w/o it you'd be better off with a fighter.
10. Rangers. Well, charm animal is neat, but I want my fighter to fight. Same probs as Paladins with specilization. Here's the exception: For Dual-Classing, Ranger/Cleric is WAY cool. Ranger gets 2 extra profs in dual wield allowing you to get a nice char in the beginning of the game. And as you go up in levels and pass your Ranger level, your cleric gets those BOSS druid spells! Single-class rangers are inferior - a fighter will take them out any day.
11. Multi-class chars. In this game, the cap leaves you at a pretty low level for spell casters, and you never get those great higher level spells. The exceptions are Fighter/Thiefs and Illusionist/thiefs. F/T is cool cause you get decent fighting skills plus thief abilities. I/T is nice, because you are a specialist and get an extra spell per level, plus thief abilities.

The difference between specialised and grand master is so small you can practically ignore it. Just +2 to all saving throws is enough to justify being a paladin rather than a fighter.
Choosing character is more dependent on the NPC's you plan to include than anything else. If you're evil, anything goes. Except true mages; its almost pointless not to dualclass into a mage from Kensai, Assassin or Swashbuckler. (Assassin/mage: no spellcaster will live longer than realising your blade or arrow is in his back, and the poison is making his spellcasting impossible)
A skald at the back giving +4 to attack/damage to Korgan Jaheira and immunity the ugliest afflictions is definately worth it.

To say the Monk is useless is to disregard the truth. Monk's are awesome, at least into Chapter 5 where I am, and I can't imagine anything removing their ability to completely kick ass later in the game!!!!!!!!!!

If you want to play a character who has the best weapon the game offers, or casts spell, or gets to wear the cool looking armor, then a Monk isn't for you, but as of now my monks' fist do 1-20 and I am able to attack 7 times every 2 rounds. My Monks' AC is -7 and could be -10, but I share my items with MIsc and Jaheira.

I don't know how much the earlier poster spent trying each class, but it sounds like he didn't spend much time with the MOnk. Do a search reference Monk, read what you find, but pay more attention to the players who actually went past level 9 or 10.

Remember, you're character starts at level 7, so drawbacks that apply to early level classes just don't apply in this game.

my Monk found, but doesn't even use the gaunlets of crushing. He doesn't need them....

Just a few things to note. I’m not disagreeing with you Glorick the Half-Orc, but when it get down to it, it is the character the one feels closest to that make for a better gaming experience.

Swashbucklers are good if duelled into or from a fighter. Added combat bonuses. (shadowkeeper if duelling from fighter)
Assassin I am pretty sure they get up to *7 backstab ie 2 higher than a normal thief also good if duelled to or from a fighter.

I think Wizard Slayer has to be the most useless as the cost is just too high compared to any benefit you might receive.

I found thieves in general after you max out in most of the important abilities a bit of a waste.

And though a Sorcerer hasn't many spells they are all about volume. Pretty good if you are lazy, as you don't have to worry about trying to second-guess which spells you are going to need. I found with a mage there are a lot of spell sitting in slots that are there for the "just in case" scenario. Were with a sorcerer who is backed up by a "just in case" mage you use all of the spells as they are the favourites ones anyway.

What? Archers are the coolest characters in the game.
Not only as a ranger do you get a racial enemy (just as firkraag) but you alos get mad bonuses with bows, and with the abundance of great npc fighters/rangers/paladin you dont need to worry about a lack or mastery in melee weapons. no one will ever get close enough to you because youll be too buys making a called shot between their eyes.
my only comlaint is the lack of great long bows. on or two dont cut it.

I'm disagreeing with you right off, Glorick. You're saying over half the classes in this game are worthless. Assassins do get an additional modifier to backstab. The archer is one of the few kits in this game I thoroughly condone. Monks are excellent. Very good damage, excellent special abilities, and a nice, original idea as well. Swashbuckler; the idea is, the swashbuckler combines the fighter/thief theory into one class, so you can also dual him, see? You're basically telling us that any class that can't attain grandmastery in a weapon is useless as a fighter, which is, of course, complete bullshit. They don't get +3 or something to hit and damage and lose an extra attack per round. So? You get a good weapon to make up for that loss of THAC0, or put proficiencies into a weapon style. In my game Viconia has a proficiency in both flails and shieldfighting. With the flail of ages she can do up to twenty damage per stroke, with a THAC0 good enough to hit adamantine golems nine out of ten times. 'Nuff said.

This looks like it's going cause some arguments this thread so I thought i'd join in. The makers have simply tried to create a large variety of characters to appeal to anyone who plays it. Just because you think a character sucks, doesn't mean others will.
Swashbucklers- the whole point of the character is that he's a fighter thief in the one class, he levels up quickly because he's a single class. The best thief in my opinion. Doesn't suffer thieves skill penalties like the assassin and the bounty hunter.
Wizard slayer- Agreed the cost is a bit steep for his benifits, but it's far from useless. I used a dwarf wizard slayer in my first game and every spell was bouncing off him because of his magic resistance and wizards have no chance of casting spells around him for long.

Any class is worth playing as weaker ones make for more challenging gaming. Try starting a solo multiplayer game with 6 of the classes that suck and see if you can beat it without cheating...

Okay, who's dissing Bards? If I hear it again I'm gonna send my bard to beat your preious little wizard to pulp.

First - my analysis had nothing to do with "role-playing" or fun, lol. It was merely an analysis of the character classes that should be modified (IMHO) or are not as useful as their counterparts.

People who love monks - I invite you to do a test. Build a lvl 18 1/2 Orc Kensai with dual wield or two handed wield. Build a LEVEL 36 monk (obviously u need to remove the cap adn use the cheat for XP).

Give the Kensai some decent weapons. Give the monk the guants of crushing and girdle of giant. Kensai used Kai, monk used Quiv. The kensai will make his save almost every time and will wipe the floor with the monk.

I did the same thing with my regular 1/2 Orc fighter from the end game (Ac -9, Vorpal).

The Kensai won 20 out of 20, my regular fighter also won 20 out of 20. I invite you to test for yourselves, don't take my word for it. It will only take you an hour or so.

I read up on the assasin, and he does get a higher level backstab, so he actually is kind of nice, plus the poison IS great to interrupt spellcaters. I went and tried him out to see, and I agree with the people who posted earlier. The assasin and assasin/mage combo is great.

People who don't believe specialization means that much - once again I invite you to try it. Go full dual wield with a fighter all long swords or two-handed sword with two-handed wield. It matters not. Then build a ranger or a paladin and try to take them on. In my testing, the pure fighter (lvl 19 vs lvl 17 Pally or Ranger, capped) wins almost every time (18 out of 20 Ranger, 17 out of 20 Pally with Holy Avenger). Once again, try it out, don't take my word for it. As for the Archer, I think it should be a fighter sub-class. I made a full bow specialization Fighter vs. an Archer and they went head to head with +1 composite bows and acid arrows. Lvl 19 vs 17 (cap again) - the fighter won 13 of 20. Well, that ain't much, and the other benefits of the Ranger gives the Ranger a little edge overall, but my point was if he was a Fighter sub-class he could get the bonus and specialization.

For specific tasks, Pallys and Rangers come in handy. For a woodland quest with lots of animals to charm, the Ranger is great. For fighting racial enemies the Ranger is great. The Undead Hunter is nice for this game since some of the hardest battles involve undead, plus there is a +5 boss sword only he can use.

But when you all join Neverwinter Nights campaigns and go PvP, you are gonna ditch your rangers and pallys for pure fighters. Monks Low HPs and inability to wear armor makes them bad tanks, and QP requires a save which most high level creatures will pass. Plus they have Clerics THACOs which REALLY sucks. If they got Fighters THACO they would be great. But they don't.

It's fun to try all this stuff out, do some testing with it and see the results. If you get different results, I will revisit some of these things, but I saw it with my own eyes (me and some testers). One thing that people didn't mention about Monks which I think is their best ability is MR. That lvl 36 monk I made could EASILY destroy ANY mage, he had 60-somthing MR plus after that he gets to make a save. I tried this a lot and none of my mages could beat the monk. So if your monks purpose is to combat Wizards you have a winner. In about 2 rounds your monk should be able to kill almost any wizard.

Here's how to fix the following IMO:
Monk: Give them Find AND Remove traps. To me, that would be enough.
Archer: Fighter class, no specializations except for ranged.
Barb: Advanced Specialization in melee weapons only. Cannot use ranged weapons.
Sorc: Increase # of spells able to cast per level.
Pally: Advanced specialization in ONE weapon only.
Ranger: Advanced specialization in ONE weapon only (this could also be a remedy for the Archer situation).
Bards: I still don't get this class. In the heat of a battle, the last thing I need is some fool singing in the background, hehe.

Hmmm okaaay.


I had a level 19 (human)fighter called sigemund first time round. 170 hit points
I had a level 17 (elf)stalker called Hygelac Second time 155 hit points


Made a mplayer game and set them at each other


My ranger with boots of speed sped towards the fighter did 5 hits in one round and the fighter had 50 left

Mheanwhile the other did 40 dmg to ranger

Second round Fighter---Dead DOA DECEASED GONE OKAAAY??

Sure youll probably say something like if he had the same weapons he would have killed the ranger, and maybe.

But the only weapons i truly think go for fighters are 2 handed swords so that defeats the whole point
(unless dwarf--- muhaaaa)

Just a few questions:
1. what are the gauntles of crushing, you said that monks should use?
2. why do barbarians suck? They get a mount of hit points and armed with the ring of Kangaxx, they nearly invincible.
3. And im curious about the monks thac0, is it getting better during the game? How much thac0 has a lv 12 monk for example?

Khanar Tor'vel

my bard is right behind you, backing you up.

This one seems to be a hot topic, so I gotta put in my 2 cents...

Classes I don't like:
Sorcerors: I hate them, unless I cheat with Shadowkeeper. Not enough variety in favor of raw power, and mages are built on versatility. It's not to say that they're so terrible that they're unplayable, but I don't like them.
Blades: Why use defensive spin late in the game when you can have an AC -10 tank do the job with better HP, and offensive spin doesn't cut it compared to a fighter with full specialization in a prolonged battle. Yuck. But again, someone out there probably likes them.
Swashbucklers: I just don't like the no backstab. Truly, I would like this class a lot more, and it's not too bad, but I can't stand not being able to backstab. I did like 124 damage on a backstab...

Classes that are underrated:
Monks: I did not just hear someone slam a monk... Monks fists do more damage than any weapon in raw damage (where else can you get 1-20 damage?), a monk can kill pretty much any enemy in one shot of vibrating palm, doesn't use up armor that could be better used on another character (unless you're cheating), attacks an obscene number of times per round, has magic resistance (and a lot at that), has a high movement rate, and is unaffected by a large number of very annoying spells. And that just doesn't explain the overwhelming coolness of the class. The only disadvantage is that I have to play that damn fighter stronghold, instead of a martial arts school or something. The monk isn't as tough as a barbarian and can't hit as fast and hard as a kensai, but he's not a brutish fighter, he's got finesse... And I spent my points in stealth, since my monk's trap ability is useless next to Jan's, and he finally could sneak around with the boots of stealth at 13th/14th level... Too bad he can't backstab.
Bards: They are the bomb, with the exception of the blade, and even the blade could probably be nice if I could figure out the charms of the class. But all the bards can boost allies' stats or drop the enemies'. And your main character is very much a luxury, especially if you're not worried about the mage/thief shortage...
Paladins: The inquisitor kit is awesome. I would use Keldorn and all, but I hate Keldorn, but the Inquisitor is the best. Dispel magic at double the level? That'll drop any spell that is affected by dispel in the first place...
Multiclass characters: True, they are a bit... umm underpowered in the long run, but they add a certain level of depth to a character, and have the opportunity for 2 strongholds...

Glorick ----- It appears you just like fighters.

What a load of *&)()^$%^ you said about rangers.

Best ranger class : Stalker Can backstab, has some decent mage spells, has ambidexterity (automatically 2 * in duall wielding)

Ok only leather armour but that makes you want to use hide in shadows and backstab evry one, But i still managed to get him a - 9 AC

And -9 thaco main hand and -6 off hand

You said that a fighter would kill a ranger, think again : My ranger has 5 attacks per round with no magic.

Yours with a fighter using a 2 handed sword would be like 2 or 2 1/2 attacks .

In mplayer my char whacks the enemy fighter into oblivion before the enemy even has a chance of doing a large hit.




All said this all depends on whos playing!! Iff your thick, playing as a red dragon wouldnt save you.

In the old Pen and paper AD&D I had a favorite Bard that would be easy to receate in BG2. He was a 8th level fighter that dualclass to Bard. It gave a nice variety of abilities and being 8th level fighter with 18 con gave him close to 100 hit points.

The the real fun began. Upon gaining 6th level mage spells with my Bard he immedialty went hunting for one spell alone.

TENSORS TRANSFORMATION.

Turning a mage with 40 hp into a beserking fighter is nothing right? It only doubles his hitpoints to 80 and he still has crappy AC. Well my dual classed Bard had 102 hitpoints. This doubled to 204 and he did kick ass. A mage can only use a dagger with Tensor Transformation but that wasnt a big deal. Even high plussed daggers arent considered really valuable to most people. So with some work I gained a decent +4 dagger with spec abilities that I only used when beserking. Using specilisation as a fighter I had gained dual weapon. So that meant a dagger in each hand.

Ever see a Pit Fiend go down to a lone bard wielding a pair of daggers?

Nope. Neither had the DM til he watched me do it.

Depressed him to no end.

I would'nt mind a set of dice like the ones you must have used to roll his stats

It was not intentional actually. The character could not dual class when I created him and wasnt intended to be. Several adventures ened with ability score increases and lots of character gold and favors went into aquiring wish spells.

So I was the poorest money and equipment wise of my party. I was also the most dangerous when we all lost our equipment though.

I'm playing BG2 thru a 2nd time now as a Swashbuckler and have been very successful doing so. My character Eleryn has been alternatively double wielding 2 long swords and using a buckler, a longsword and and one of the magical throwing daggers. Most of the time, he's been one of my front-line "fighters" since he tanked up so well. Yeah, he can't backstab. I can live without it. I love seeing Eleryn slicing and dicing with those two long swords. Also, I've added Katana to his skills just so that he could wield the Celestial Fury as well.

I played the first time thru as Magness the Undead Hunter. There's nothing like having a vampire whacking away at your undead hunter and being completely immune to level drains while those mean and nasty vamps are getting a taste of Holy Avenger!!!

I happen to think that the Inquisitor and Undead Hunter's immunities and special abilities are exceptionally valuable and are worth the cost. Keldorn's special abilities will save your butt at times when your axemurderer, I mean, axemaster NPC is doing his best impression of a statue or that enemy mage is fighting from partial invisibility and your kickbutt mage can't get a targetting lock to fire off their magic missiles.

What makes any paladin really useful is not just their good sword arm but the special abilities.

I just finished the game with a Swashbuckler as a leader and I think It's a good class. My Caracter was a Gnome Swashbuckler and When I was fighting Beholders I had Boots of speed , Cloack of spell turning, The Daystar in one hand and Namara in the other. My Swashbuclker plowed in to them like there was no tommorow! Also to avoid Critical Hit I whear the death mask of king Gorik III it's the only helm a thief can wear. Equiped with the Shadow Dragon Armor I had a -9 ac Total plus gloves of Weapond expertise he rarely missed. Plus being A thief that cleared up must heavy armors for Mincs and Anomen to wear.

There are no classes that generally suck.

The whole point of playing a roleplaying game is to .... roleplay. Play whatever characters you think you would have the most fun with. Get it? Fun? This is a game remember, not a contest.

My only complaint is that I wish they stuck to the AD&D rules a bit better.

after playing the game a couple of times, i tried out the wizard slayer to see how powerful they can get. I created a half-orc wizard slayer (and named him Drun Warchild) who is dual wielding and specializes in two mace, flail and axe. Once he got the flail from nalia's keep and the frost axe and undead mace, he started kicking some serious a&*! I use the axe on anyone who is still living, and let the reign of terror loose upon them by using the mace if they are undead. I got him the bracers of defense, the magic full plate mail, the stupid looking helm that looks like a rock and the girdle of giant strength. the only thing that sucks is not being able to use potions. Of course the third time through, I played the multi-player version and used my characters for the most part. I also created a shapeshifting druid that transforms into a werewolf -- awesome! -- I dig monks too!

Remember Monty Hall? The guy who maxxed out all his stats, had the most powerful class and weapons, and then complained when the game wasnt hard enough? Monty hall is no fun in the long run. Who can feel a real sense of accomplishment if they beat the game with maxxed out stats and zero challenge?

A lot of good points and data here, but.... Justaworm is right. No class truly sucks. They just require different playing styles and bring different challenges to bear. As to straight fighters vs paladins, you can't evaluate the delta by just having them square off and smack each other with swords. (I hope that is not how you play your paladin) They have many other strengths, while still being able to smack pretty hard with their sword. Compare the 2 vs a horde of undead and see who wins! I am sure the same holds true for all the classes and kits. There are situations where each will shine. That is, with the proper playing style, any class is capable of 'not sucking'.

Without using comparable equipment, the test is silly. Why not strip the fighter naked and give him a staff while your ranger has -20 AC and a vorpal sword? Plus, no need to go to mplayer to try this out (I hope you already knew that) you can make your own game and import the chars.

Here's my point - The Rangers and Paladins cannot compete BETTER in hand to hand combat in the majority of cases (note my exceptions above) vs the pure fighter. The AD&D I used to play before most of you were born was d8X2 for rangers at level 1, warhorse for pally, and the cost was more xp to level. Their fighting abilities were identical (that was b4 specialization rules), just took them longer to progress and their attacks per round progressed a little later. My point is I used to LOVE playing pallys and rangers as my tanks, but in this version it makes more sense to take a straight fighter. It's an RPG, but there is a lot of strategy involved.

The only bard that seemed interesting to me was the jester. Those + bonuses are the same as "Defensive Harmony" and I don't have to waste a char to get that spell. The Jesters ability to cast confusion seems more intriguing. I was waiting for someone to respond on that bard sub-class...

Glorick,
I think that is where my bias FOR paladins and rangers comes from. I played them in P&P games when they had everything a fighter had and more. I rolled up my first Paladin 23 years ago and I still love them! (I used to really hate the incredible amount of EPs to lvl up)

To quote me and my motorcycle buddies: "It's not what you ride, it's *that* you RIDE". An old geezer on a 50cc scoot can run circles around some newbie on a 1000cc Superbike. As long as you play your character's strengths, any class is okay.

Personally I'm a melee/gibblets sorta guy, so I've got my Undead Hunter up front with her Holy Avenger. I can pretty much kick anything's ass except Illithids, which have been having me for lunch for the past week...

Bubba D

Magnus, that was the exact point I was making. I don't like that they have been neutered.

Glorick,
Even though they aren't what they once were....(sigh) I will always have a Paladin up front protecting from evil, dispelling magic, and generally leading the 'good fight'. It's just my style. Call me old fashioned, but I really dig that whole 'lawful good' thing. I guess it's because I'm not really that good in real life. I'm more like chaotic nuetral.

This debate will be eternally circular because everyone has their own style of play. Sure, some classes will not be as statistically advantageous to use as others in a CPRG as the mechanism of the game engine has to be taken into account. But I totally disagree with the statement that the monk is a useless class. It's all in how you play the game. Even jesters can be fun and challenging to play. If you want to be a power gamer then play a kensai and dual him into a mage and you will basically end up dominating the game because that is what the engine favors, but at the end of the day this is an RPG after all and everyone has their own choice. IMO there are no real classes that SUCK, there are classes where you do not get maximum output from, eg jester, sorcerer, etc but they can still be fun to play. That's what NPCs are for! People get too focused with turning their character into a superpower that is streets above the rest of the gang. It's a team effort, baby!

I am new to BG 2 but played BG/TOTSC a LOT. I chose a Bard - in the end- just for the roleplaying aspect. Particularly in BG1 the Bard was relatively useless (apart from lore) but seemed a good character for the story. He or she seems a good character to make others join (high charisma) and the opther effects seem like they would keep a group together. In BG2 the bards are much better - I'm now a skald and my new favourite strategy is to use Minsc up front with the bard behind playing away. Lure a monster (currently Trolls) to me and watch Minsc dual wield them into little pieces (whilst being funny in the process).

Sure I could have chosen a class with more mayhem locked inside; the Bard seems a challenge. And at least when isolated and out of spells he's not a total push-over!

Any character is good if you try to make a story around it.

OK Simultaneous post, I guess

Glorick the Half-Orc, I have to mention one thing.
You said your Kensai won 20 out of 20 vs. monk, it
just seems incredible. Because with monk's ability
he never will be killed by a Kensai. With a +4 movement
at level 21, any monk can run from Kensai, and there
is no chance that a Kensai can follow him(without a boot of speed of course, we are talking about class abilities right?). So my conclusion is a Kensai may not lose but a monk will
always come back for a new challenge. (I only wish a monk can backstab....)

Stalker class rules a ranger with backstab, cant beat that, tho armour class a nightmare to keep down. Valygar is a retarted tho, my main char. has a thaco of main hand:2 and off hand:4 (celestial fury and Frostreaver)

btw can i get Yoshimo back after the gauntlet?