This is not a PvP thread it has nothing to do with who can do the most melee damage in the least time, it is to do with what character is the most dead weight for a party as in the most unneeded character

If anyone wants to insult me for this I ask you to read what I have to say first.

I'm talking at mid (16-25) to high (26+) levels. Are Fighters even needed? just look at Viconia at level 20+ she could easily beat any Fighter except Keldorn just by casting spirit armour four times... well yes it's nice to have the Celestial Fury and the Carsomyr but all the other classes can be more useful then most fighters without any special weapons, so let's compare fighters with the main general classes

Fighter: with some Items and buffs they can take the front lines easily, but are restricted to straight up melee and usually die quickly without assistance due to lack of spell casting ability.

Cleric: essential to all partys in high level difficult fights and can make themselves immune to physical damage with Armour of faith to the point of 100+ where hits actually heal them, they also have great thac0 and HP with spells and improved hasted can get up to 4(?) attacks a round when dual weilding.

Theives: These guys are absolute horrors to everything not immune to backstab especially fighters and mages, IF you use them to their proper potential otherwise they are useless in a fight. apart from backstab you need these guys for traps (there's spells for locks) and there are some good pick pocket oppurtunities, their ability to lay traps certaintly is very useful and their UAI is great as well partly because of some of the Bard only items which can turn battles against some of the hardest fights against the odds into a slaughter.

Mages: These guys can't really be compared to a fighter even if they are potentially so much better then the fighter

So why exactly should we take fighters when even the Cleric can beat them in Melee, and the theives are more versatile? they might make good dual class and multi characters but I honestly can't see any reason to justify taking a pure fighter or one of the kits other then for a challange, if you want the Celestial fury and Carsomyr then the Blade can use both of these and be more versatile and powerful then even a Kensai (damage wise) could ever dream of.

So I guess you could say that I think Fighters are the most pointless characters in the game and there is nothing to ustify taking one except your looking for a challange, something different or stupidity.

[ January 03, 2004, 03:59: Message edited by: casey ]

A Fighter with good saving throws and decent items will beat a Cleric of the same level any day of the week. Unless the thief has looots of invisibility potions (not forgetting fighters can use these aswell), I can't see him beating a pure fighter. No way.

Of the above, only the Mage would have a chance of beating a pure fighter. Where as a Sorcerer would just decimate him in a few rounds.

Remember... protections wear off after time. A fighter will just wait the time out and sieze the opportunity when it comes (have you ever mixed Kensai's 'Kai' ability with Great Whirlwind? Pure devastation.

Don't make the mistake of underestimating the damage a high level fighter can inflict in only a short space of time.

But, as you say yourself, I think Fighters are best used in a multi/dual class situation, where you get the best of both worlds. Just imagine a fighter/thief using the 'backstab damage in melee' ability (i forget the name) then activating Greater Whirlwind. Sheesh.

I'd say it depends on the strategy. It could be possible for a cleric to defeat a fighter, remember they have better summoning spells and a great amount of buff and healing. I think that the spell casters are stronger at higher levels than fighters in general but you still need the fighters to hold back the monsters in melee so that the casters can focus on casting and not worry about spell disruption or defense.

Morsmordre: I know perfectly well how powerful a fighter can get it was my first character ever. And also how can a fighter beat a fully buffed Cleric? unless the fighter has someway of getting rid of all the clerics buffs and possible 200% damage resistance he won't be able to put a scratch on the Cleric, about the only classes that could would be the Paladin with the right weapons, or the archer with the called shot to stat drain their str to death, which would take a lot of hits potentially.

Btw Morsmordre I'm not saying I don't like them because from a sentimental view I'm quite fond of them but I don't think they have any purpose at all that the Cleric, Mage and thief combo cannot handle.

Rastilin: you can get a wand of monster summoning before chapter two and in general it's 50 charges can keep throwing out fodder as long as you want, plus you don't need to share xp with them. And like I said figter classes are not the only characters that can tale the brunt of the front lines, I have a Blade in ToB who's almost max level and he's 140 hp+ without tensers.

Fighter HLA: Smite

Fighter HLA: Greater Whirlwind

Cleric/Druid = Chunks regardless of whatever buffs are up.

Thief = Chunks from smite alone, no time to drink potion of invisibility. Or the thief gets a backstab in, the fighter shrugs it off and smites the thief. Followed by Greater whirlwind.

Bard = buffs and buffs and gets a Smite in the face. Stands stock still while Greater Whirlwind tears him to shreds.

Besides, in 2nd edition, pure fighters have supreme saving throws against everything. That is their other advantage over the other warrior subclasses like paladins and barbarians besides weapon mastery.

But then, since magic is so overpowered in BG, fighters can't beat sorcerers (lame) and wizards.

Anyway, every party always needs someone at the front to keep the heat off the casters and rogues. Unless you reload frequently and come into every battle fully buffed and rest after every fight. :rolleyes:

BTW: You have insulted my favorite D&D class! Prepare to be sacrificed to Bhaal! :evil: :p

Clerics cannot get 200% damage resistance. Spells do have a level 20 cap (ie. You're over level 20, you still cast every spell as a level 20 character).

Out of those, a mage could beat a fighter, a cleric could if he prepared ahead of time, thief could not, bard could (but once again, he'd have to have a contigency or something prepared ahead of time, just like mage).

Fighters can use the best weapon in the game. Its called the axe of unyielding +5. When you combine this weapon with one or two whirlwinds tour cleric will die, regardless of any buffs. Anyway a much better fighter is the ranger cleric, who can cast the very useful druid buff spell iron skins. Pure cleric cannot even compare to anything in terms of melee. Yes they can buff, but they get one measly attack per round, which they can improve with any weapon avaliable to their use. Their thaco might be low enough to hit the fighter, but they wont be able to hit him often enough. If its a kensai the clerics already dead btw. Kensai dual weilding axe + belm or kundane gets 5 attacks per round. So thats 15 attacks in two rounds if you decide sparing whirl wind. The chances of vorpal effect are over 100%. And of course the kensai will always hit the cleric, regardless of cleric ac, because their thaco will be like -15.

Its just the fact of the matter that fighters and all their subclasses can use weapons that no other class is capable of using efficiently. Sure cleric/theives can use that same axe, but they will weild it horribly. Btw, let me point out that this axe regenerates very quickly, so that even if the cleric gets lucky enough to get hits, the wounds will seal.

In case your wondering what weapons? Foebane, purifier and caromsyre (paladin weapons), Gram the sword of Grief, and ravager (the absolute most damaging weapon in the game, and also has a vorpal effect.)

Why are we simulating one on one battles between the fighter and the other classes to determine the usefulness of a fighter in this game? I don't think that is a valid evaluation of a fighter's usefulness IMHO (unless that is what casey anticipated upon making this thread).

I would define "uselessness" as follows: what attribute does a fighter bring to a party that cannot be equaled by other class(es) in this game? (Note that specific scenario arguments from ToB is valid here or else we'd be debating this for general fighters in RPGs in the Playground Forum)

If the answer is nothing, then the fighter is useless since the other classes could easily make up for the lack of a fighter.

I think casey's point in a nutshell is fighters can go toe-to-toe and kill stuff. Clerics with their buffs and high armour can too. Thieves can too, but in a more roundabout way. Mages we know already. So if other classes can handle themselves in melee, why bother with the fighter? (ie: the fighter's ability to melee in combat is equalled by other classes, so he is useless)

Just presenting a different view on the topic. :)

[ January 02, 2004, 19:36: Message edited by: Blog ]

I find fighters very useless. My first time through I worked with a very magic/cleric party and I wasn't actually able to get very far in the last conflict since magical resistance is so popular among enemies and since you can't sleep inbetween those 7 fights once they're gon they're gone.

I remember having a hard time throughout SoA and ToB, but now I'm using a tank party with very little magic and I'm flying thorugh the game quite easily.

Instead of using a pure fighter use a barbarian. They move two points faster then other characters and with the Barbarian Rage, magic becomes just about useless.

Fighters useless? Bah! I've had pure fighters that could go toe-to-toe with dragons and take on liches solo. You just gotta know how to equip them and how to fight with them.
Oh, and you're basing your entire argument on PvP combat, not the party against AI controlled opponents. If you want to debate who's best in PvP we could sit here 'till we're blue in the face as each class has their strengths and weaknesses we can exploit. But then the game isn't against other players is it? You're going up against AI opponents and each class in the game is given the resources to take these guys down, you just need to find them.

A cleric could wipe the floor with any fighter provided the cleric prepared spells spcifically for combatting fighters. However since clerics are the healers of any party they tend to stock up on the cure spells rather than the offensive spells.

You don't appreciate fighters because you don't notice what they are doing because the order to tell them what to do is so simple. [Select fighter] [Left click enemy]. Wow that Dragon's Breath spell did wicked damage. Well the only reason your mage was able to cast that spell is because the fighter kept those 3 beholders and 5 vampires occupied long enough for the mage to cast it.

I though I explained why fighter could beat cleric regardless of buffs...? Anyway, to adress PvM combat, a fighter does far more raw damage to monsters than any other class on a consistent basis. Yes mage has some nice aoe spells, but they hurt the party and he only has so many spells. A fighter in the late game period may consistently do over 60-100 damage per round. This is an insane amount and Im not even counting WW or GWW! Cleric can never compare to that much damage, yes clerics buffs are nice, but not neccessary by any means. Sure cleric can improve himself but thats not really a big deal imo. They still will never match fighter in raw damage out put. Thus the purpose of cleric is to buff the party as a whole, and heal. Clerics make fighters better fighters, they cannot fight themselves. Pure clerics are incapable of ever beating any monster as efficiently as a fighter, regardless of any buff. Fighter hlas underscore this even more so. To overestimate the cleric by saying they can beat fighters in PvP isnt very smart. Buffs dont last forever, and when their gone you still have ****ty melee class left.

Well I have to say that I'm glad that there are at least to people that are open minded enough to not jump to conclusions. I know that I might not have made myself clear enough since I am used to talking to people I know face to face, and we usually know each other well enough to not have to phrase everything perfectly to get a point across, so if I was too vauge it's because I'm not used too takling on message boards.

@ everyone except Blog and Niskers

I am not comparing who is better then the other I'm comparing who is most to least useful for a party, and the point I was making was, that if a Cleric, Mage and thief party is used right they can handle everything without fighters, including melee even if Fighters can use more weapons and get more attacks. But on that note I'll let you in on a little secret.

Swashbuckler+Dual weild=2 attacks a round+ UAI& Belm AND Scarlet Ninja-to= 4 attacks a round, so tecnically this should mean Improved Haste will make it 8 attacks a round.

With the Swashbucklers UAI ac and damage modifiers, could be almost as damaging as any fighter except the kensai and probably even more later on and better ac.

The fighter might be able to use axe of unyeilding but so can the Swashbuckler, the fighter gets an extra 2 attacks a round but I think 8 is enough to get the job done.

The Fighter has greater HP well the Swashbuckler could last just as long with his +8 ac and he can lay traps, the Fighters Smite ability? Well for one it's a one use a day and the Swashbuckler can use the Harp of Pandemonium which when Malisond knocks back all enemies in the area and confuses most of them... the Fighter has no superior answer to that I belive.

The Blade can easily beat both of them together but that's disscused to death to the point of no revival.

Also where did I say PvP? it's a game against the computer not another player unless one day they manage to make an ai script for all characters that equals a PvP fight there is no point.


I'm talking at mid (16-25) to high (26+) levels. Are Fighters even needed? just look at Viconia at level 20+ she could easily beat any Fighter except Keldorn just by casting spirit armour four times Fighter: with some Items and buffs they can take the front lines easily Cleric: essential to all partys in high level difficult fights So why exactly should we take fighters when even the Cleric can beat them in Melee, and the theives are more versatile? There is nothing about theese quotes to suggest PvP, and tbh they point towards the exact opposite.

Of the above, only the Mage would have a chance of beating a pure fighter. Where as a Sorcerer would just decimate him in a few rounds.
You can't compare a Mage with the Fighter any more then you can with a Thief so why bother?

I'd say it depends on the strategy. It could be possible for a cleric to defeat a fighter Read above.


Clerics cannot get 200% damage resistance. Spells do have a level 20 cap (ie. You're over level 20, you still cast every spell as a level 20 character Armour of Faith stacks to get as much resistance you want.

Fighters can use the best weapon in the game. Its called the axe of unyielding +5. When you combine this weapon with one or two whirlwinds tour cleric will die, regardless of any buffs. Read my comments on the Swashbuckler

@ Blog that's more or less what I'm saying, yes.

Oh, and you're basing your entire argument on PvP combat, not the party against AI controlled opponents. Show me where exactly I said PvP in my original post? I said who is more useful not who would win in PvP.

Well the only reason your mage was able to cast that spell is because the fighter kept those 3 beholders and 5 vampires occupied long enough for the mage to cast it. Dragons Breath and Comet has a casting time of 4 and a single charge from a wand of monster summoning is more then enoguh time to keep anyone busy, and by the time you can cast level ten spells you will have things like Plantars who can easily last a few rounds unaided.
To overestimate the cleric by saying they can beat fighters in PvP isnt very smart. If I was comparing them in PvP I'd have it in the topics title or I'd start a Fighter vs Cleric thread.

This is an insane amount and Im not even counting WW or GWW! WW and GWW are a waste of a HLA imo you can do better with improved haste and Critical strike unless your using two handed weapons.

What? GWW a waste of a HLA? It's the 2nd best warrior HLA (Smite coming first). Improved haste has an effect that comes close but you can't just activate improved haste on a warrior at will. GWW can be activated instantly and gives you the chance to deal 10 attacks in one round. You can time 10 attacks on a mage just when his immunity to magical weapons goes down and make mince-meat out of him.

A small comment about Swashbuckler's Whirlwind Attack: if your swashbuckler equips a weapon which provides an extra attack, like Scarlet Ninja-to or Belm, and you activate the WWA, you'll get *1* attack per round. Yes, ONE. I discovered that while my swashy equiped Daystar + Belm and activate WWA and hit Bhodi only ONE hit per round. Soon I found out that if you unequip the Belm you'll get 10 attack that round again. So poor Bhodi got hacked by my daystar 10 times, each with near 40 damage.

Yesiree, that why I only use foebane when I whirwind with my swash. Anyway swash is nice and all, but he still cant even come close to comparing to a fighter in combat, his saving throws are abysmal without equipment of all sorts, and even then its hard to get his saving throws under 0, even with nice equipment. This is of course assuming you give him everything, instead of sharing the wealth. Ide much rather have kangaxx ring on my cleric (since this your main melee guy) then theif.

Fighter does not encounter this problem. Furthermore fighter kits are very intersting. Kensai is technically the most versatile melee user in the game. Far more versatile than swash. First of all with his innate bonuses he can weild any weapon in the game with sufficient power. Not proficient with bastard swords but still wanna throw on foebane? No problem, his base thaco is high as hell. For example, at 4 million experience, fighter level 24, a kensai will be able to weild a weapon he has not a single profiecieny point in, thats unenchanted at -9 thaco. Provided he has 18 strength. Now add enchantments and you dont even have to worry about your thaco, not matter what weapon you weild ever. Ok you say, but what about his attacks per round. Whirlwind and switch back to your regular weapon then. The point is he is versatile enough to use any weapon in the game except for a few class restricted weapons that most theives (except one weapon) would be unable to weild effectively anyway.

Berserker is far too well known for me to have to go into detail about.

Wizard slayer really comes into his own nicely in tob with WW attack as well. Why you ask? Because provided you can see that pesky wizard, you can whirlwind and snipe him 10 times so that he can never cast a spell again! Remember, regardless of what protections that hit will still kill his casting efficiency. And with the insane fighter thacos avaliable to you, he will always hit that wizard with pitiful ac. Even before tob he can drop most wizards out of a fight in 2 rounds. That allows them to get off at most 1-2 spells, unless they cast time stop. In which case your magic resistance + items keeps your slayer safe.

Im not saying your point doesnt have validity, it certianly does. But Ill never be the person who uses pure clerics to get up in there and melee it out. Multi or dual classed clerics are a different story, and you'll never hear me say a fighter could beat an R/C in a million years. But a pure cleric is nothing to applaud.

And please, dont tell me that pure theives except for swash can ever melee effectively. They cant. Their hp is far too low, if they wear plates they lose the ability to use their theiving skills (at least I think they do, not positive on that, going on the fact that they cant hide in shadows with plates on.) thus their ac wont ever be high enough to go toe to toe with tob opponents. Swash is another thing entirely and can be considered a F/T for all purposes, a weak fighter theif for that matter, although more theiving points. Thats why swashes fit nicely in parties, but you solo F/T's.

Abomination

if you could choose between 8 attacks a round all doing critical hits and 10 attacks a round just doing normal damage what would you pick? thats like the difference between CS+improved haste which lasts a lot longer then GWW and picking GWW for a measly 2 extra attacks a round, the best use for GWW would be with a wiz slayer or an archer + Called shot, but as usual it depends on style.


A small comment about Swashbuckler's Whirlwind Attack: if your swashbuckler equips a weapon which provides an extra attack, like Scarlet Ninja-to or Belm, and you activate the WWA, you'll get *1* attack per round And what if you use both?


Let me put this in a different hypothetical way.

There's a hot air balloon with a Fighter a Cleric, a Theif and a Mage, these four are in a war and need to go launch a suprise attack on an enemy castle (hot air baloons were probably not invented then but it's hypothetical only) this castle is riddled with traps (you need theives for this and there the best scouts) and patrols inside and is full of mages (so you need your own mage to kill them and dispel there defense) and there will be heavy fighting so Clerics are needed, and the fighter is straight forward enough.
These people can take anything they want with them in reason so nothing outside of BGII and nothing stupid like cosmetics or whatever that they will not need but with all this gear with them it can only safely carry 3 of them, now in real life if it was the military they would throw away anything that's not needed so who in your opinions are essential to succeeding in this attack?

Also just to complicate things any class or kit is valid as long as it covers the prerequistes and no M/C or D/C characters.

The mage, the fighter, the cleric. Use summons to set off traps. Bust open with cleric and crom faeyr. Fighter and cleric will provide a much better melee wall than cleric and theif as your implying.

Or better yet just go in with your sorcerer who memorized wish (I just threw that in for fun ;) )

Hmm, let's see. Your mages and clerics are gonna run out of spells pretty quick and since this place is packed with enemies resting is suicide. As for a thief, he'll get one backstab in before he's torn apart. So who do I go in with? Easy; Monk with a Ring of Gaxx and Ring of Regeneration.

Casey
GWW is a beast of a HLA. More than once Sarevok and Korgan have totally munched a dragon using it. What else is there to choose from? Critical strike is nice but how do you use it against things immune to critical hits?

Fighters are not useless. They serve their purpouse very well - reliable damage and meat shield. Sure you get Rangers, Paladins and Barbarians who also do this job, but a fighter will enjoy the benefits of grandmastery or a large number of weapons to choose from and crazy saves. The last thing you want is your meat shield turning on your party after being charmed.

I never found that one mage was enough to take down enemy spellcaster protections. So I'd take:
fighter: kills things without needing to rest
cleric: can heal and can use the only really needed spell against mages: True Sight. They can also cast restoration (aka the most needed spell in BGII IMHO).
thief: scouting (this was a military operation after all), disabling traps and opening locks. Can take out enemy mages before they place their protections.

I've never understood why everybody is so enthousiastic about the a mage taking down enemy spell caster defences. Mine never gets to it since he is almost constantly trying to take down the spell protections so by the time he can start taking down damage protections the enemy spellcaster is already almost dead. :confused:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A small comment about Swashbuckler's Whirlwind Attack: if your swashbuckler equips a weapon which provides an extra attack, like Scarlet Ninja-to or Belm, and you activate the WWA, you'll get *1* attack per round
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And what if you use both? Ok, here's my result after testing:
If you have the Scarlet Ninja-to and Belm both equiped, you'll get 5 attacks per round. However, surprisingly enough, the first time I did this test, I got 10 attacks, then I re-equiped either of them, and got down to 5 attacks. From then on I could only get 5 attacks whatever the case is.

If I have only the Ninja-to or the Belm equiped (the off hand was empty), I got only *1* attack per round.

If I have Daystar and Belm or Ninja-to equiped, 3 attacks per round.

If I have just Daystar equiped, 10 attacks per round.

GWW is a beast of a HLA. More than once Sarevok and Korgan have totally munched a dragon using it. What else is there to choose from? Critical strike is nice but how do you use it against things immune to critical hits?
I agree that GWW is a great HLA but you can do more damage with an improved hasted dual weilding fighter against most enemys with critical strike then you can GWW and there's only 2 out of 10 attacks less so your not missing much really, but it's good to have at least 2 GWW's for bosses b the time the fighters use them up you could easily win but for me the rest would be CS.

Sure you get Rangers, Paladins and Barbarians who also do this job, but a fighter will enjoy the benefits of grandmastery or a large number of weapons to choose from The Paladin can use everything the fighter can except that 2H sword in the underdark I forgot the name of and Black Razor, Purifierand Carsomyr are Paladin only weapons so there pretty much even I think and they get a +2 bonus to saves, but I know Paladins a lot better then fighters so please tell me if I'm missing something.

Strife: I don't think Crom can force all locks open that don't need a key. But I may be wrong, maybe the SoA locks but I'm not sure about ToB

Well all these combinations are all good and can handle things differently but as for my own choice I'd take.

Kensai:
About the only word to accurately describe the Kensai in battle is awesome, he does miss occasionally but that's rare enough to not matter and with certain items and 18 dex I can get his ac down to -5 using single weapon style (-7 afer SoA if playing evil).

Swashie: Tank, Traps scout
Need at least one scout and someone to stop the trio from stumbling to a spiky end

Sorcerer: spell thrower
with wish and high wis there's no need for rest.

Notice that I didn't include healing and I have a Paladin? well since there's a lot of mages their I decided that in a case like this an inquisitor is better then a cleric as long as you make sure you let the summoned fodder take the hits.

Also I can't belive we all forgot about the L10 mage spell Plantar! the Planetar can cast healx3 bah who needs Clerics? ;)

Edit: I don't see anyone including kit's? I think it's alright to do so since the F, M, T, and C are only the base classes all the kits and other classes all come from these four classes so it should be ok if it's in BGII

[ January 04, 2004, 09:47: Message edited by: casey ]

Ya planetar actually destroys the need for a cleric and a fighter lol. Its a beastly spell.

casey could you clarify your rebuttal for fighters being the only characters able to attain grand mastery? To me, this is the only reason to play a fighter (no ToB so no HLA's)

About the kits: nothing terribly special:

A lightly armoured, high offense power rival to the kensai would be a monk. But the monk can heal himself, moves faster, and can sneak to get the first hit in. Kai is neat for extra damage, but stunning blow and quivering palm are better.

Berserker rage is pretty cool. It grants some HP and many immunities... sounds like something a cleric would do with buffs and Chaotic Commands. No imprisonment protection though, so the cleric would need to read a scroll or something. Maybe go cleric/ranger with blade barrier if you want to deal more melee damage.

Wizard Slayer is fairly unique. But if we call him a mage killer, then its already covered by the inquisitor above (using Carsomyr of course for the magic resistance). Insect swarm from a druid is also a mage killer. So we see his role as a mage killer is matched easily by other classes.

With the Kensai's supreme weapon initiative [-1 for every 4 levels, IIRC], the Monk will eat a Smite first. Follow that up with Greater Whirlwind [+1 damage every 3 levels] and you got Monk chunks. The Kensai never misses at high levels unless you roll a 1 on your attack roll. Quivering palm? Bah.

No melee class can beat a kensai in a straight up fight. Unless the Paladin summons a Planetar first. :rolleyes:

Berserker/Vanilla fighter: the ideal dual/class platform.

Mages crumble before the Wizard Slayer with Greater Whirlwind and a bow.

Are Fighters useless? Definitely not. In fact, they are the most versatile and devastating combat class in 2nd edition D&D with awesome THAC0 and saving throws.

But then, since Casey is adamant on the uberness of sorcerers [lame] and other casters being superior to the fighter, who can change his mind?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Personally, I really cannot be bothered to cast three or four buffing spells for EVERY fight in the game. Sarevok and Korgan smacks the simple enemies into oblivion while the rest of the party hangs back and conserve their spells for the big fights. I don't like resting every five minutes as well.

The Swashbuckler replacing the Fighter? A joke. They lack HP, THAC0 and saving throws. Not to mention that their AC is generally poorer. Even the Monk cannot stand up to a high level Kensai as illustrated in my first post. And paladins are so overpowered to the point of cheese in BG2 that I simply refuse to use them. What's more, Lawful Good = dumb. Rangers? Country bumpkins. Barbarians? Uncouth brutes with no discipline.

I shall always take a Fighter over any other melee class and have at least one of them in my party. Yes, the wizard's spells might own [sorcerers are the lamest thing to happen to D&D, though], the cleric keeps the party on their feet, the thief scouts and clears the traps but there is always a place for the big guy in plate armor with a sword and shield to bust up some heads so that everyone else can do their stuff.

but I know Paladins a lot better then fighters so please tell me if I'm missing something. Do note that fighters progress faster in levels for better THACO, saves, more HP, and HLA's.

And even paladins are part of the fighter pool so to speak, so if you admit their useful your whole arguement is voided. Just like if you admit monks, rangers, or barbarians are useful your arguement is voided.

@ Shura: you keep on saying Sorcerers are lame, but you haven't given any reason other then that your too impatiant to cast a couple of quick spells. It's about power, not a biased view on what everyone personally perfers, also I'm not so in love with Sorcerers that a bit of reasoning won't change my view, actually I've only ever played the Sorcerer once and fighter classes more often then then spell casters.

Also BGII is not 2nd edition that's there, this is here and it's just the way it is unfortunatly for anyone who's been D&Ding since then.

And who said Swashbucklers replace fighters? not me, I said they are almost as damaging as fighters and when they get UAI and lvl 40 a Swashbucklers ac can match the fighter + the 8 ac bonus. Swashie: Tank, Traps scout
The reason I said this for the Swashbuckler and not the paladin is because you don't really need to put a sign on him saying "tank"

casey could you clarify your rebuttal for fighters being the only characters able to attain grand mastery? Well if your going to take grandmastery you need the ease of use mod to make it worth while otherwise you'll only get about +2 to damage and +1 to Thac0 or something like that instead of the extra half attack a round.

Do note that fighters progress faster in levels for better THACO, saves, more HP, and HLA's. Well I've never been a straight Fighter myself but I've had a Paladin with hp and save's to match Sarevok's, and the other shortcomings of the Paladin can be made up for in different way's, so all in all I think they have an equal chance against each other, besides if we're going to start comparing classes with each other they both only need to cast GWW and it's all over.

And even paladins are part of the fighter pool so to speak, so if you admit their useful your whole arguement is voided. Just like if you admit monks, rangers, or barbarians are useful your arguement is voided. Well saying that mainly just give's some extra choices for fighters and if you put them under anywhere then it would be the fighter, since that's what there best at, but I'll go and edit the Paladin to use a different character if that's the case.

Are Fighters even needed? Yes, as long as there's also a mage or sorcerer in the party.

So why exactly should we take fighters when even the Cleric can beat them in Melee, and the theives are more versatile? Primarily because no one has the patience for buffing or economizing.
Secondly because even though these classes can beat a fighter, few classes are as effective at dishing out physical damage constantly and as reliably as fighters are able.
This is the fighter's last remaining use in ToB that defines it from other classes.

A cleric with even 500% resistance will die if the fighter just happened to be using the Chaos blade, Blackrazor, or Soul Reaver.

@Shura
You're being too direct. No sane character would tough out a fighter that way.
Ever considered what invisibility could do in any of those battles?


A fighter has too many weaknesses that other classes can exploit PvP.
If it has to be PvP, the F/M/T and more so the Blade would have the best chance against all the other classes since they have no distinct weaknesses, and they can do anything in a game which allows you to be the best at anything. With this they can exploit and abuse any class' weaknesses.
Party-wise, however, it's an entirely different story.

I agree, magic is very overpowered in BG2.

What is the most useful class for any party? That depends. For magic oriented parties what you need most would be a fighter, since physical damage is the most reliable damage-type in the game. For a fighter-oriented party, the mage would be most useful.

Clerics and Bards are the most useful for any party as a whole, since they were made to be that way - the cleric with his spells and the Bard for being able to take over any lacking position and enhance the party's abilities.

The most useless? Beastmaster, when compared to any other class.

I think the Beast master could be alright if he had some Druid spells and his wolf summons were actually powerful, for all those that read Wheel of Time think of Perrin, and maybe give him some greater Wolfwere type of polymorph ability and it would be balanced.

Primarily because no one has the patience for buffing or economizing. And yet you always go on about how good the Blade can get "if buffed and economized" Clerics can protect themselves from level drain effects and if they are buffed enough and are dual wielding Crom and FoA Improved hasted they can potentially take out any class in Melee quite quickly. This could be even better if you were able to take a level one ranger and dual to a Cleric I know what I said about dualing, but by the time a Cleric can cast level 7 spells that little Damage, Thac0, etc. bonus would count for very little and leave the cleric with some very good Druid spells.

With improved haste thats 4 attacks per round. Correct me if im wrong but thats not exactly much. Just what exactly could the cleric take on with those stats. Certianly none of the improved tob bosses. They would dispel magic and rip him aside in 10 seconds, tops.

Well, my fighter was able to deal with ANYTHING.
Clerics, thieves, dragons, and mages. Just kicked them in the head till they're dead... (I mean till the protections disolved).
She was very good, because she always kept the casters in relative peace, so they were able to throw comets and dragon breaths over her head (and the monsters surounding her).

It's completely different without front-liners. No one else can take monsters even when her spells run out... just remember when it last happened! Would you take Demogorgon without good basher? I wouldn't.

kensai, kensai, kensai....and umm....kensai....and sword saint :rolleyes:

fighters are good, and can handle most situations (exept thiefs jobs, locks and traps that is.)

though the vanille (pure) fighter sucks, the kits are great. (kensai hehe).

you all probably figured out by now that i just love kensai's. so many uses for them hehe

@ Death:

I agree completly, so many uses, click here, hack them to pieces, click there, hack them to pieces etc.

Ok here's my unofficial not necessarily infallible rating for the Kensai.

Fighting-20/10
Theiving- 0/10
Spells - 0/10
Healing - 0/10

Kensai imo in terms of damage and Thac0 is the Elminster of Fighters and can even get a decent enough AC to not die in 3 rounds.

I play Kensai's for fun all the time and it makes me laugh watching him at work on some Golems/Trolls/Umberhulks, just get 6+ of them bottled in a doorway and it's slash, thrust, next, don't get blood on the carpet ladies, slash, thrust :) (this was supposed to be funny but I can't remember what I was about to say.)

Actually the Kensai and Archer and to a lesser extent Cavalier are the only fighting kits I can ever bother with.

hehe, good to hear.

i especially like to solo a dual classed kensai.
kensai\thief
kensai\mage
kensai\cleric

etcetera.......


so powerful......so very powerful........ :D

@Casey
That's the problem. There are many ways to avoid having to buff or rest too often, but the contrary has already been embedded deeply on the gaming instincts of many.
A cleric can't protect himself from stat drain, though he can protect himself from level drain.

[ January 05, 2004, 12:59: Message edited by: Scythesong Immortal ]

Though I'm sure the conversation has moved well past me I just noticed a horrid mistake in my last post to this thread. I said fighters were totally useless....that was supposed to be useful... my fingers have an annoying habit of not listening to my brain. Apologies on that, I'm a fighter girl all the way. :)

kensai, kensai, kensai....and umm....kensai....and sword saint

fighters are good, and can handle most situations (exept thiefs jobs, locks and traps that is.)

though the vanille (pure) fighter sucks, the kits are great. (kensai hehe).

you all probably figured out by now that i just love kensai's. so many uses for them hehe Kensai has no durability. Dies to fast in true hack'n'slash. Pure fighter rules!
(if you insist, put "or berserker" in there)

And one more thing:
Swashbuckler+Dual weild=2 attacks a round+ UAI& Belm AND Scarlet Ninja-to= 4 attacks a round, so tecnically this should mean Improved Haste will make it 8 attacks a round. I thing that improved haste sets your attacks to 2 + 1 offhand + 2 from those weapons, =5.
(fighter would get 5 + 1 + 2 =8, but it's far better to use greater whirlwind, get 10 with better weapons. Apart from this, you can use +5 wepons this way, which belm and the other certainly aren't. IIRC, they are only +2.)

Ok well so what if you can only get up to +3 (Scarlet ninja-to) with Extra attack weapons? try dueling with Belm and Scarlet and getting up to 8 attacks a round with Smite and CS.

Differance between GWW and Improved hasted with Belm and Scarlet.

GWW: 10 attacks a round with a 1/20 chance of getting a Critical hit, and the options of using+5 weapons

Imp.Haste: 8 attacks a round with each hit been a critical strike meaning double damage each hit, and only a +2 and +3 weapon.

So besides all this what is one thing apart from the Ravager that cannot be hit by +3?

You get 2 attacks less with improved haste but those 8 attacks all do double damage which is the equivilent of 16 attacks a round, you do the math.

I think a level 20 Kensai and Berserker have an even chance probably, The Berserker has a higher AC meaning less damage taken from a hit, and the Kensai has a good enough damage modifier Thac0 to be on par with the beserker in # of hits and damage, and the Kensais can use the Iuon stones which give critical hit protection as good as any other helmet.

Of course Improved Haste is better than GWW. With True Grand Mastery you can have up to 4 attacks per round so IH gives you 8 and a much longer duration than GWW. The only problem I see in your argument is that at high levels IH is complete overkill. With 3 tanks GWWing I've taken down Improved Demogoron and all his fiends down in 3 rounds flat. Is IH really a great use of a 6th level spell slot at this point? I think not.

GWW only lasts for one round per use a level 20 mage or Sorcerer casting improved haste lasts a lot longer then one round (20 to be exact) and it's more practical combining it with CS, I know you loose the great animation of going into the whirlwind but it's a trade off ;)