Monks, Kensai, Paladins, Why not just a trusty fighter?

[Titan]

Okay, forgive me for asking, but dosen't anybody just use fighters anymore.
I get all the extra help I need from NPC's. What so hot about all these Multi, Dual, No Class Characters. Why not keep it simple and fun. A couple fighters, a thief, a mage and a cleric, and you've got a solid team that can beat almost anything that's thrown at them. I've beat BG and gotten to Chapter 4 in BG2 with just such a team. Can I win or do I need the extra help. Any advise is appreciatted.

[Accord]

Fighters are good for dual classing. People select paladins, rangers, or monks due to the special bonuses available in each specific class and kits. I'm not saying fighters are bad, but all my fighters are dualed to either mage or thief since eventually you will realize that pure blunt force cannot get you through all situations and you will also want to offer addition support to your party members.
Any team provided you know the strengths and weakness of each character (and use it to your advantage) have the potential to win. You currently party looks pretty balance, but you might want to add another mage in case something misfortune happens to your main spell caster (e.g. silenced).

------------------
Long live H22A1!!!!!

[Witherland]

I enjoy using a Kensai. I have my character and Elven Kensai, and he is a two weapon user. Kicks major butt, but gets hit a little too much. I'm currently searching for some more items to help him out in that department. The no armor deal is tough.

Witherland

[Azreall, Master of War]

Yes, well, nobody just wants to play the good ol' raw steel annymore. Everybody wants to be original.... intresting playing some wizard type. Or some exotic fighter/dancer/clown/sheep farmer/new age healer/F16 pilot...

I discoverd a good fighter CAN easilly get you trough the game with NO problems. Okay, Acoord, I agree. A good balanced party and knowing the NPC's weaknes is obligated if you want 2 win. But I think you are not in the game to aid your NPC's... theyre there to help you. After all, you're the main character.

------------------
"Strength and Honour"

[Leonidas]

I think that the designers wanted to cut down the power of fighters a bit in relation to spell casters/effects. I was a bit disappointed when I saw the specialization in BGII.

[deverece]

Actually you can probably beat this game with any character. Its all a matter of preference and play skill. If you wanna be a fighter, go for it. Just put together a balanced group and you will do fine.

------------------
Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
- Josey Wales

[jbombard]

I think a straight fighter is good. But if I my mages and thieves will all be dual-classed. Why? Really there are 3 good reasons for this.
1) ALot more hit points.
2) Added weapon proficiencies.
3) You can use more weapons/armor.

While I do not use my mage for melee, I feel sorry for someone(thing?) who thinks they can just close in on my mage and pound him with their sword. Their definately in for a surprise. Not to mention the added hit points mean that I can get hit with a quite a few more spells.

For thieves the extra hit points are good, but the added proficiencies is where it's it.

Clerics generally have good hit points so I would either kit them or dual class them. This is not as cut and dry.

Personally I do not care for the Kensai, even if I was to play one I would never dual one(well maybe Kensai/Thief, you get thieving bonuses for no armor). The armor restrictions are too extreme(no bracers?), and once you dual them you no longer continue to advance their benefits. Even as a single class I would rather go with a monk, you can use gauntlets and you get some kick ass melee attacks espescially in the higher levels.

[Draggor]

Don't worry. Fighters do still exist. I've used almost all fighters in my games. I've tried out each kit and I prefer the normal fighter. I like having a good choice of equipment, being able to takeon anything. Contrary to popular opinion a high level fighter is effective and nearly unkillable. Stick the ring of regeneration on him and you'll never need healing again. Also in terms of background of the game I think the fighter is the most realistic choice for several reasons
a) You're the protagonist, the rest of the party is there to support you. Your character is supposed to lead.
b) There are good examples of the other major classes in the npc's but not fighters. Kurggan is good but he is evil which goes against the spirit of the game and only has axes. With a fighters benifit of five slots in a proficiency you want to be able to pick what weapon you want to advance in. All the other classes only get one or two slots so where they have their choices to start off with doesn't matter to much as you'll fill them all eventually.
c) Your character is the child of the God of murder. I feel those instincts would manifest as a fighter. The slayer, which is you giving in to your blood, is a vicious hand to hand creature.

Suffice to say every class is good and will do well in the game providing you play them right. Yes even fighters. I'm going to convince everyone that fighters do rule if it's the last thing that I do.

------------------
Just when you thought it was safe to visit this board.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Titan: Okay, forgive me for asking, but dosen't anybody just use fighters anymore.

One reason. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

(Monks are more interesting, Kensais flashy and Palladins more humorous.)



------------------
Where were Hamlet and Horatio when I needed them?!

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

My main character was a fighter in BG2, but as in most games, a high level mage is more powerful than an equivalent fighter, thus most people use a specialist fighter to attempt to reduce the gap. I myself now use Paladins instead of straight sword and shield fighters.

------------------

Holy Avenger of the OHF

HATS for sale baby!
Sponsored by Yorick
Your ad here? Call 112 -221 -123