Classes that suck

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.

[Memnoch]

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?