Classes that suck

What? Archers are the coolest characters in the game.
Not only as a ranger do you get a racial enemy (just as firkraag) but you alos get mad bonuses with bows, and with the abundance of great npc fighters/rangers/paladin you dont need to worry about a lack or mastery in melee weapons. no one will ever get close enough to you because youll be too buys making a called shot between their eyes.
my only comlaint is the lack of great long bows. on or two dont cut it.

I'm disagreeing with you right off, Glorick. You're saying over half the classes in this game are worthless. Assassins do get an additional modifier to backstab. The archer is one of the few kits in this game I thoroughly condone. Monks are excellent. Very good damage, excellent special abilities, and a nice, original idea as well. Swashbuckler; the idea is, the swashbuckler combines the fighter/thief theory into one class, so you can also dual him, see? You're basically telling us that any class that can't attain grandmastery in a weapon is useless as a fighter, which is, of course, complete bullshit. They don't get +3 or something to hit and damage and lose an extra attack per round. So? You get a good weapon to make up for that loss of THAC0, or put proficiencies into a weapon style. In my game Viconia has a proficiency in both flails and shieldfighting. With the flail of ages she can do up to twenty damage per stroke, with a THAC0 good enough to hit adamantine golems nine out of ten times. 'Nuff said.

[Draggor]

This looks like it's going cause some arguments this thread so I thought i'd join in. The makers have simply tried to create a large variety of characters to appeal to anyone who plays it. Just because you think a character sucks, doesn't mean others will.
Swashbucklers- the whole point of the character is that he's a fighter thief in the one class, he levels up quickly because he's a single class. The best thief in my opinion. Doesn't suffer thieves skill penalties like the assassin and the bounty hunter.
Wizard slayer- Agreed the cost is a bit steep for his benifits, but it's far from useless. I used a dwarf wizard slayer in my first game and every spell was bouncing off him because of his magic resistance and wizards have no chance of casting spells around him for long.

[omegadawn]

Any class is worth playing as weaker ones make for more challenging gaming. Try starting a solo multiplayer game with 6 of the classes that suck and see if you can beat it without cheating...

Okay, who's dissing Bards? If I hear it again I'm gonna send my bard to beat your preious little wizard to pulp.

First - my analysis had nothing to do with "role-playing" or fun, lol. It was merely an analysis of the character classes that should be modified (IMHO) or are not as useful as their counterparts.

People who love monks - I invite you to do a test. Build a lvl 18 1/2 Orc Kensai with dual wield or two handed wield. Build a LEVEL 36 monk (obviously u need to remove the cap adn use the cheat for XP).

Give the Kensai some decent weapons. Give the monk the guants of crushing and girdle of giant. Kensai used Kai, monk used Quiv. The kensai will make his save almost every time and will wipe the floor with the monk.

I did the same thing with my regular 1/2 Orc fighter from the end game (Ac -9, Vorpal).

The Kensai won 20 out of 20, my regular fighter also won 20 out of 20. I invite you to test for yourselves, don't take my word for it. It will only take you an hour or so.

I read up on the assasin, and he does get a higher level backstab, so he actually is kind of nice, plus the poison IS great to interrupt spellcaters. I went and tried him out to see, and I agree with the people who posted earlier. The assasin and assasin/mage combo is great.

People who don't believe specialization means that much - once again I invite you to try it. Go full dual wield with a fighter all long swords or two-handed sword with two-handed wield. It matters not. Then build a ranger or a paladin and try to take them on. In my testing, the pure fighter (lvl 19 vs lvl 17 Pally or Ranger, capped) wins almost every time (18 out of 20 Ranger, 17 out of 20 Pally with Holy Avenger). Once again, try it out, don't take my word for it. As for the Archer, I think it should be a fighter sub-class. I made a full bow specialization Fighter vs. an Archer and they went head to head with +1 composite bows and acid arrows. Lvl 19 vs 17 (cap again) - the fighter won 13 of 20. Well, that ain't much, and the other benefits of the Ranger gives the Ranger a little edge overall, but my point was if he was a Fighter sub-class he could get the bonus and specialization.

For specific tasks, Pallys and Rangers come in handy. For a woodland quest with lots of animals to charm, the Ranger is great. For fighting racial enemies the Ranger is great. The Undead Hunter is nice for this game since some of the hardest battles involve undead, plus there is a +5 boss sword only he can use.

But when you all join Neverwinter Nights campaigns and go PvP, you are gonna ditch your rangers and pallys for pure fighters. Monks Low HPs and inability to wear armor makes them bad tanks, and QP requires a save which most high level creatures will pass. Plus they have Clerics THACOs which REALLY sucks. If they got Fighters THACO they would be great. But they don't.

It's fun to try all this stuff out, do some testing with it and see the results. If you get different results, I will revisit some of these things, but I saw it with my own eyes (me and some testers). One thing that people didn't mention about Monks which I think is their best ability is MR. That lvl 36 monk I made could EASILY destroy ANY mage, he had 60-somthing MR plus after that he gets to make a save. I tried this a lot and none of my mages could beat the monk. So if your monks purpose is to combat Wizards you have a winner. In about 2 rounds your monk should be able to kill almost any wizard.

Here's how to fix the following IMO:
Monk: Give them Find AND Remove traps. To me, that would be enough.
Archer: Fighter class, no specializations except for ranged.
Barb: Advanced Specialization in melee weapons only. Cannot use ranged weapons.
Sorc: Increase # of spells able to cast per level.
Pally: Advanced specialization in ONE weapon only.
Ranger: Advanced specialization in ONE weapon only (this could also be a remedy for the Archer situation).
Bards: I still don't get this class. In the heat of a battle, the last thing I need is some fool singing in the background, hehe.

Hmmm okaaay.


I had a level 19 (human)fighter called sigemund first time round. 170 hit points
I had a level 17 (elf)stalker called Hygelac Second time 155 hit points


Made a mplayer game and set them at each other


My ranger with boots of speed sped towards the fighter did 5 hits in one round and the fighter had 50 left

Mheanwhile the other did 40 dmg to ranger

Second round Fighter---Dead DOA DECEASED GONE OKAAAY??

Sure youll probably say something like if he had the same weapons he would have killed the ranger, and maybe.

But the only weapons i truly think go for fighters are 2 handed swords so that defeats the whole point
(unless dwarf--- muhaaaa)

[MidNightForce]

Just a few questions:
1. what are the gauntles of crushing, you said that monks should use?
2. why do barbarians suck? They get a mount of hit points and armed with the ring of Kangaxx, they nearly invincible.
3. And im curious about the monks thac0, is it getting better during the game? How much thac0 has a lv 12 monk for example?

Khanar Tor'vel

my bard is right behind you, backing you up.

This one seems to be a hot topic, so I gotta put in my 2 cents...

Classes I don't like:
Sorcerors: I hate them, unless I cheat with Shadowkeeper. Not enough variety in favor of raw power, and mages are built on versatility. It's not to say that they're so terrible that they're unplayable, but I don't like them.
Blades: Why use defensive spin late in the game when you can have an AC -10 tank do the job with better HP, and offensive spin doesn't cut it compared to a fighter with full specialization in a prolonged battle. Yuck. But again, someone out there probably likes them.
Swashbucklers: I just don't like the no backstab. Truly, I would like this class a lot more, and it's not too bad, but I can't stand not being able to backstab. I did like 124 damage on a backstab...

Classes that are underrated:
Monks: I did not just hear someone slam a monk... Monks fists do more damage than any weapon in raw damage (where else can you get 1-20 damage?), a monk can kill pretty much any enemy in one shot of vibrating palm, doesn't use up armor that could be better used on another character (unless you're cheating), attacks an obscene number of times per round, has magic resistance (and a lot at that), has a high movement rate, and is unaffected by a large number of very annoying spells. And that just doesn't explain the overwhelming coolness of the class. The only disadvantage is that I have to play that damn fighter stronghold, instead of a martial arts school or something. The monk isn't as tough as a barbarian and can't hit as fast and hard as a kensai, but he's not a brutish fighter, he's got finesse... And I spent my points in stealth, since my monk's trap ability is useless next to Jan's, and he finally could sneak around with the boots of stealth at 13th/14th level... Too bad he can't backstab.
Bards: They are the bomb, with the exception of the blade, and even the blade could probably be nice if I could figure out the charms of the class. But all the bards can boost allies' stats or drop the enemies'. And your main character is very much a luxury, especially if you're not worried about the mage/thief shortage...
Paladins: The inquisitor kit is awesome. I would use Keldorn and all, but I hate Keldorn, but the Inquisitor is the best. Dispel magic at double the level? That'll drop any spell that is affected by dispel in the first place...
Multiclass characters: True, they are a bit... umm underpowered in the long run, but they add a certain level of depth to a character, and have the opportunity for 2 strongholds...