I hear a lot about how good some
kits are, has anyone tried a kit
and just thought it was a horrible
waste of time?

Well, I always thought that a wizard slayer was pretty useless...

on a related subject, one time I was a ranger and set my racial enemy to squirrels...lotta good that did. http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...les/tongue.gif

Least favorite kit would probably be the stalker.

JR

Damned i lost cousin Jan's techno gloves

Well, I've tried the Beastmaster,
and the Jester and ARRRRRRGGGGHHH.

Yeah, a wizard slayer seems pretty uselss, as does a beastmaster, a illiosnist/divinar are also pretty usless. Inquusitor doesnt seem to be of any use. I'm sure theres others, but I dont know them, I am new to BG2, and thus, havent had much time to experement with classes/kits . None of the bards seem to be any good, but thats just me.

Don't get me started on how great bards are... They rock, there are dozens of posts on this board that deal with bard tactics or just abput how great they are in general.

The worst are: Barbarians which are awful since they can't go beyond specialized in weapons. Duh who thought THAT up?

Assassins are dumb. The poison ability is just sort of lame and +1 to hit and damamge? Might be great at lower levels but isn't terribly useful beyond that as thieves THACOs always sort of suck. Swashbucklers make MUCH better thieves in terms of combat.

Shapeshifter is also pretty dumb. No armor?!?!? This isn't a monk type who gets better AC with levels so whats up with that? The werewolf shapeahift is nice but gimme a break. Hiding in the back of the group until one of the ever so useful druid spells is needed or a werewolf in your party makes NO sense.

The beast master does sound dumb, but is it me or do most people use bows with Rangers anyway? If you just resign him to using a bow, he's better than a standard ranger... BTW, the best fighter style charater with bow usage would be a wizard slayer with 5 slots dedicated to long bow. Try that and have no more problems with enemy mages...

Which brings me to this... I have to disagree about the wizard slayer in that they are GREAT against high level mages with the spell casting failure. Plus you don't lose out much with being restricted in magic items. He is a fighter afterall... Plus, dual him to a mage after he's 9th level and you have an ubermage with arrows of doom that disrupt enemy spell casters like no other.

Oh and Inquisitors are useless? Clearly you know not the beauty of a dispel magic being cast instantaneously from a front line tank. Or the usefulness of True Sight. The inquisitor appears underpowered compared to the other paladins but trust me, you don't miss the low level priest spells, the lay on hands or the turn undead when half your party members are stunned and you need a dispel magic right away...

Baron Nocturna

------------------
Anyone care to see my Rod of Lordly Might?

[This message has been edited by Baron Nocturna (edited 10-10-2001).]

Rangers and paladins can't go beyond specialised either and they are far from rubbish. You're forgetting all the benefits of a barbarian, imunity to maze, imprisonment etc when enraged, resistances to slashing weapons....rubbish??? I don't think so, not as good in a straight fight as a pure fighter maybe but you just have to use them right. http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...iles/smile.gif

I personally hate playing druids i think clerics are far better. (Or Ranger clerics)

I thought enrage only made them immune to hold, fear, charm and level drain. Pretty nice mind you but NOT immunity to maze or imprisonment (thats for berserkers, not barbarians). I just think that aside from the enrage ability, the other advantages suck compared to the disadvantes. The resistances to normal weapons at extreme level is cool too but nearly every class is cool at extreme high level. I just am not terribly impressed by the barbarian. Its a watered down berserker who moves quickly and gains a nifty resistance at high level.

Baron Nocturna

------------------
Anyone care to see my Rod of Lordly Might?

man, wizard slayers are always getting ripped on. granted, they are not the best class in the game altogether, but can serve as an awesome kind of kit along the lines of replaying the game.
i played an elven wizard slayer, Arakon,through SoA and ToB. he was one of the most fun dudes i've ever played through the game. i gave him Blackrazor as his own personal sword, which was a badass roleplaying touch. also, i don't know it was some kind of bug or just a bonus in the kit's advancement, but after about 16th or 17th level or so, I remember that his magic resistances increased a lot more than just 1% per level. it would go up about 5% to 7% per level after a certain point...i don't remember exactly what the increments were, but let's just say by ToB he had over 90% to 100% magic resistance (excluding any beneficial items equipped), and he sure as hell wasn't 90th or 100th level.
it was fun to play him from a role-playing perspective, because he was chaotic neutral and his kit always dictated in what manner he interacted with mages (if a fight ensued where a mage was present, he would always bum rush him w/ his boots of speed on, and had the mage flying in little chunks before the fool could even cast his first spell.)
you all should try playing a wizard slayer at some point...i think you might like it more than you think, and it's a good way to hone your baldurs skills (not being able to use any potions but healing ones is a cool challenge in itself...)

Wizard Slayers never appealed to me. Why bother, thinks I, when every Cleric has Miscast Magic and every Druid has that and Insect Plague.


Swashbucklers are a nifty class but one that isn't well done in BGII. They don't seem to get the extra 1/2 attack per round to which their specialization entitles them. A Swashbuckler dualed to something -- Fighter, Mage or even Cleric -- is a sight to behold, though. Still I don't like how Swashbucklers were done, though I like the idea of the kit quite a lot.


Skalds get a raw deal at high levels: bards of any kit are able to get a song which rivals theirs. Conversely, this means that Blades get a very good deal at those levels, since a lame bard song was their main deficit. Jesters require patience: try turning your Jester invisible and walking him into a group of hostiles while singing. Soon you'll have fighting enemies, or some will wander, confused and alone, into range of your other party member's missile weapons. (For role-playing, think of Gandalf, invisible, taunting the trolls which held Bilbo & co., until they died of sun poisoning.)


Shapeshifters... bah. Their number of attacks and THAC0 means that even in Greater Werewolf form, they aren't fighter replacements. A Shapeshifter dual'd to a Fighter at level 13 would be pretty darn cool, but would require quite a bit of patience.


"Regular" Paladins suck compared to Cavaliers. Inquisitors and Undead Slayers are both quite interesting, though Inquisitors IMHO are better. The Undead Slayer's chief benefit is his permanent Negative Plane Protection (level drain protection) but later in the game there are plenty of weapons which confer that protection.

Bounty Hunters either suck the big munchkin OR rule, depending on your view of traps. Late in the game Bards and other rogues get truely great traps, but no one can compare to Bounty Hunters in sheer quantity of traps.

As to Mages: Enchanters stink. Inability to use Invocations means a lack of Magic Missiles, Fireballs and Chain Lighting coupled with a lack of Contingency, Sequencer and Spell Triggers.


One rogue's humble opinions, -- Nifft