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.