I'd say a Mage
i'm a necromancer aswell have to say that necro is kinda weak specialist but i chose him for the role playig aspect
I'f youre a mage with a nice trowing dagger you cast a couple of protaction spell upon yourself and a couple of shield and see you opponents parish under your offencive spellpower

If you're a mage there are items and spells which can make you resemble a fighter (i.e. Tenser's transformation, Slayer Change, strength-enhancing items like gauntlets and girdles and powerful spells like Protection from Normal/Magic Weapons) so that you can have the best of both worlds. As a fighter however, the closest you can get to a mage is using the book of infinite spells and some other items that can cast spells for you. Therefore I think a mage has more advantages, he/she is not necessarily physically weak. Also I think it's way more fun to cast spells than simply to hack and slash your way through (well maybe it can be sometimes, as a means to get rid of frustrations or something ~lol~)

So here is the age old debate, but is there any hardcore evidence to say which is better? I think not. Oh yeah and i dont want any people coming in here saying something like, "this is a stupid thread, have a kensai/mage instead". Please stick to the topic for an interesting debate. So to get the ball rolling... I think the mage is superior ( being a necromancer myself ). The reason is, when you get to the asylum and earn the innate ability to polymorph into the "Slayer", you are a formidable fighter. Throw in a fireshield and some stoneskin, and i would like to see a fighter beating that.
I look forward to your responses, and remember its only a debate.

I'll go for the fighter, I like to be on the front line and kill, murder, kill...(mindless, dosent it, hehe)
Mage is useful though(choosing proper spells is not easy...yah)

Thanks, there is some good mage support here...No angry fighters though?
Oh and btw, the Necromancer isnt a weak specialist, cos i have Jan J. for his illusionist qualtities.But yes without him it could be irksome.

necro's on there own are weak but WAY cool

I'm a fighter/mage. Fighters don't need to sleep every few minutes to efficiently kill, mages do damage on a wider scale at the cost of time and planning. However, I can safely say that each has its own purpose and that neither could ever fill the shoes of the other. You can tenser's transformation all you like but the fighter's advantage is in having an innate talent for fighting; they don't need to spend several rounds at the beginning of a battle sorting their spells just so they can actually hit something. By the same token, a fighter can move from foe to foe as fast as humanly possible, but he'll never be able to kill a dozen enemies in as short a time as a mage. For the sake of argument, let's toss the non-class abilities, hmm? But even so, the slayer's only good for about twenty seconds, and you'll find yourself very lonely very fast unless you use it sparingly.

Bounty Hunters rock all.

It's hard to play one without feeling guilty -- their traps are so effective it almost feels like cheating.

They're the only class that can selectively kill things they can't see.

Too bad you can't kit a multi-class -- a bounty hunter / fighter would be unstoppable.

I like fighters better in that they're a lot more self sufficient. A mages spells are limited. He's fodder when he runs out of spells, which doesn't take very long. A mage also needs time to cast spells. Hit him and boom, disrupted spell. Also the more powerful a creature is generally the better saving throws and/or magic resistance it has and so it's less susceptible to magic. Yes they can do a lot of damage but only a couple of times. All your fancy spells only last a limited time. My fighter hides behind a big rock and then runs out and bashes you when they run out.

I used to prefer mages... kinda fun to have that much power. Since I started playing BGII (and even in BGI) I kinda missed being able to use all the nice magical equipment in the game for fighters. BGII has converted me completely to playing fighter characters. Its a hell of a lot of fun being a berserker (especially against mind-flayers) with -13 or so ac and a -4 thaco just smashing your way through piles of bad guys Perhaps the best part is that I can trip a trap or be surprised without having to restart from a saved game. All those hps are kinda nice.

Mages all the way. I think that the game is a lot funner when you use spells instead of just hoping that you hit with a weapon. Not that fighters arn't fun, but I just like mages more.

Halscion, you can multi-class a kit as long as the first class is the kit ie bounty hunter/fighter yes, fighter/bounty-hunter no. Hence all those Kensai/Mages. As to the debate, Mages rock at the higher levels of AD&D rules and they are far more fun. Fighters are very one dimensional and require next to nothing in input from yourself. However, a mage left to the AI can wipe everyone, including your own team out. They are far more versatile and encourage creativity. Think back to the toughest encounters in the game, they all involve magic wielders. How many straight maulers pose a threat in the game?

Is this a question of how fun the class is, or how effective they are? You can't possibly say that a fighter isn't effective.

I agree they are effective at what they do, it's just that you can play them on auto-pilot, with little or no skill involved. I enjoy playing my shadowmage, as there is a sense of danger as you explore ahead of the party, attempting to find traps, stay invisible or position yourself for a back-stab before your spotted. Then, when the fun starts, switch to a mage to really kick ass and think of the best combo to decimate your opponents or save the asses of the fighters caught by emotion, confusion, hold, domination etc. I can see the bloodthirsty appeal of fighters, it's just I prefer more input and thought. Usually I leave the fighters on AI and concentrate my actions on the magic casters, only instructing the fighters on who to target next.

Yes, I know what you mean. That's why I'm both. Adds another few dimensions to the usual hack-and-slash. : )

Hmm, this is tricky, I prefer to play a fighter simply because I´m most used to it, either as a paladin, ranger or pure fighter and well you can find alot of nice items to be stronger, to be be to hit, but well i didn´t know about the slayer part until yesterday, so my decision wasn´t based on that. However a fighter with spell and magic protection with good swords and a bow with a dispelling arrow can make a mage life a living hell and short cause a dubblewielding fighter can amass such damages to a tiny person it hurts like yesterday, but furthermore in the DoD world there is no more important teamup than the fighter and mage cause the fighter is the physical block for the mage, so he/she can toss thosse bloody timeconsuming spells, the mage can then make the fighters job a hell of a lot easier by zapping alittle here and ther.. Hence a combination of the two is a weaker but yet a good mix. However i prefer to max out both either by dualclass alittle, the mage who started out as a fighter for HP and Thac0, the fighter who starts with some better saving throws. Well the debate is open and not easy..

I like fighters (or paladins) and I do not agree that they are "one dimensional". When you are a fighter it is your duty to see that mobs do not attack the mages in your party, who despite their supposed finger-waggling power can't take 3-4 hits. They have to get their protections up and then they can perhaps resist some, and that also only until they get hit by some Dispell/Whip/Ruby Ray/Secret Word.. And then they're cannon fodder again. As a fighter it is you who will move in, get the attention of big bad mobs and try to hold them focused on you, so that the mage behind you can start flinging the spells. You have to select and balance your attacks, and be always on guard.

I have been playing fighter or paladin types in many games for many years, including the current online games like EQ, AC etc and it always makes me wonder how, sorry, stupid mages can be. Somewhy mages always tend to think that they are so important and others are just stupipd enough to "hack and slash their way to fortune" and are incapable of doing anything else. Sorry to burst a bubble but being a fighter is in no-way easy task. Somewhy mages do notice and let others know that "Look how I killed that mob with a single spell", but they fail to notice that this 'simple' warrior was the one who actually saved his/her crimpled hide and kept mobs at bay so that he could cast that spell in the first place . Do not underestimate fighters, without them there would not be mages alive . You only have so few spells, you only can cast that fast and your spells only protect you that much. There's always some mob who resists all your spells, dispells all your protections or simply hits so hard that your spells do not matter a thing.

As for BG2, I play a warrior (berserker) and I really have no problems to deal with the spellcasters. When fight begins, my ranged attackers usually get some shots in VERY fast, which in many cases disrupts the protective spells cast by mages. Also the ranged attackers have magic weapons which in many cases go well thru the initial protections mages put up, thus disrupting their following spellcasting. My berserker has Boots of Speed also on him, with Grandmastery in longswords and 2 slots in dual wield and often he simply rockets towards the spellcaster and fight is at times over in a matter of seconds - nothing more funnier then seeing different buffs "fly" up on already dead mage. That's one helluva buffed corpse down there heh.. With paladin and Carsomyr it was somewhat sad to see those protection spells come up, only to go down again - wasted spellslots.

And finally - there's only certain amount of spells you can memorize and use. Once they are out, they are out and you can't always sleep immediately to regain them. And then that 'powerful' mage turns into medicore dart/dagger slinger, who can go down with just couple of hard hits..

Phew, too long.. Anyway, point is - do not underestimate fighters, in most cases they are only thing between you and big bad mob and they are only thing which keeps the mobs from killing you with the first hit and allowing you to show your big spells.

Mages. i've always played mages.
fighters remind me too much of "see monser, whack monster, move on"
I know, I know, a lot of tactics are involved, including luring out monsters, team formation, etc.
when you play a mage, you have a lot of tools to choose from, so the game becomes more like, "room full of trolls, they will swarm as soon as I open door, so what combination so spells can I cast to kill most of them?" thats why when I built my hacked up sorceror i grabbed a number of web and holding spells. open door out of monster sight range, cast web, use another character to initiate attack frenzy by showing herself to trolls, as soon as trolls cluster near door and get stuck in web initiate firefall (death cloud. a fogbank of nitric acid)

i think the relative frailty of the mage is appropriate to the vast offensive capabilities and logical thinking involved in using mages effectively

Personally I'm a mage/cleric so I suppose that puts me in the mage camp...

Though I did play BG1 through with a Ranger. I have to say that I much prefer rangers + paladins to straight out fighters, though I am yet to expreiment with fighter kits. I just like the substantial extra abilities you get from these, even if you aren't as good with your weapons. Looking forward to trying out the Stalker - ranger with a poor backstab. Sounds interesting non the less.

Really I would say both mages and fighters are vital to the party - I don't know where I'd be without Minsc to soak up the damage. Mages offer a huge choice of spells but are marred by limited item choice, thus limiting customisation in that way. Though I agree the nature of the Baldur's Gate games does mean that plain hitting ain't that great.

Anyway, I might try a Kensai/mage (incidently is it possible to do a barbarian/mage) though I am worried this would offer far too much and mar future replayablity. What do you reckon.

A thief used as a fighter is a most playable type of character I think. You can sneak behind your enemies and backstab them by some multiwonderstrike, detect those traps and disarm then instead of walking through, pick any lock open, shoot evil mages by distance with bow, filch all kind of stuff from stores.. It's good to be a thief!

well.. Mage can do a wizard eye and druid can cast fire elemental, and then you can search the
whole area with wizard eye and smack every bad dude pieces(literaly..)with that fire element. Hm.. a bit like launching missiles this tactit.. or bit like being a chicken
That's something that even a very good thief can't ever do..

Summary, good fighter always feels more real and fun to play than some mage wearing pyjamas!

-hobs-

Necromancer all the way! I have made all new spells for a Necromancer which show the true power of Death Magic!! A mage wearing robe of vecna, Amulet of power, and some other spell casting reducers and De aura's Aura cleansing makes it so i can cast all of my spells as quick as a normal wizard casts Magic Missle!

kensaí/mage
stalker/barbarian
???
How is this possible? When I press multi-character, I can't choose speciality of the thief.
My options are only thief/mage, fighter/mage, etc....
How about dual?? Once when I played monk, I tried to dual him to another, but nay....not possible.

kensaí/mage
stalker/barbarian
???
How is this possible? When I press multi-character, I can't choose speciality of the thief.
My options are only thief/mage, fighter/mage, etc....
How about dual?? Once when I played monk, I tried to dual him to another, but nay....not possible.

fighter is better... 1) ever hear of magic resistance? cloud kill, fireball -
Mind Flayer-Magic Resistance (ever seen this?)
2) with fighter, the initiative is on my side, you cast a spell? defensive? i run away and wait. offensive? are you stupid? i've got the reflective cloak! oh, it is a maze or imprisonment spell? aww shucks, i'm a berserker, u cant touch me!!
3) it is more fun and effective to play fighter at higher levels, i've never seen any1 immune to physical damage for long periods of time(except for Kangaxx and those pesky Ada golems). +3 weapons are just everywhere!!