POLL: Worst classes

Remove all ads!

You knew this was coming (well most of you knew anyway). What classes/class kits are the absolute worst in the game? I'm talking about kits that unless you are a die-hard BG2 player you would never take. In the case of having played every class/kit, what class/kit were you the least interested in playing. I've narrowed the selections considerably to no more than one per class. Here are your options:

NOTE: All classes assume an unmodded game, so the shapeshifter is the ultra-weak original shape shifter.

Vanilla fighter - What it the world is the attraction here? It become obsolete by ToB.

Jester - For how good bards can become, was this kit necessary given the blade and skald?

Bounty Hunter - Once you get to ToB and you get special traps, the bounty hunters regular traps become obsolete.

Vanilla cleric - No matter what your alignment is, you get to choose a kit. The kit's abilities always add things and never take anything away... so why vanilla?

Shapeshifter - No armor, and your greater werewolf form can't hit anything in ToB.

Beast Master - If you wanted a familiar, play a mage.

Any specialist besides an illusionist or conjuror.

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 58 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Worst classes (58 votes.)

What's the worst class/kit? (Choose 1)
* Vanilla Fighter - 10% (6)
* Jester - 14% (8)
* Bounty Hunter - 5% (3)
* Vanilla Cleric - 22% (13)
* Shapeshifter - 12% (7)
* Beast Master - 22% (13)
* Specialist Mage that isn't a Conjuror or Illusionist - 14% (8)

 

Ah, the poll-master up to his old tricks again.

Vanilla cleric for me. Hmmm that sounds like a good name for a cocktail.

The others I like because of the roleplaying aspects - but your right - they are very underpowered. The plain fighter is OK if you want to interchange melle and ranged effectively and have no disadvatages.

 

All those classes, except maybe the Bounty Hunter and the Jester, have deep roleplaying value. Oh, and the vanilla Fighter is for dual-classing to a cleric or druid.

 

My choice was the beast master. Bringing an animal companion with you through the city always seemed a little far-fetched, and the weapon limitations imposed on the beast master made him woe-fully underpowered. I barely got out of Irenicus' Dungeon before I grew bored with him...

 

I also say Beast Master because the weapon restrictions take away the filet mignon of martial combat, the only thing he really has.

 

Man, you could only choose one... I wanted to vote for them all

 

Yeah, Shapeshifter also becomes pretty useless, and of course, Vanilla Cleric is ridiculous unless you use it for the purpose of dual-classing. Same deal for Vanilla Fighter.

I like the Bounty Hunter for the purpose of RPing. And I don't recall ever using the Jester, but it seems pointless with the other awesome bards.

 

I don't see why people hate the basic fighter so much. I just finished ToB with a pure fighter and in the last half of the game almost nothing slowed me down. It was the easiest fight with Mel I'd ever had.

I will agree that most of the others are fairly useless.

 

Well, I'm surprised the other classes got any votes at all, considering the list includes the Beastmaster. Well, Beastmaster wouldn't have been that bad, if it had been a druid kit, but now it just takes away without giving anything back.

 

Hmmm. I kind of like the shapeshifter, although you are as weak as a gerbil. My pick would be jester, you just plain suck as a jester.

 

Cleric, I tried to play as a Cleric and quicly changed my mind, I couldn't stand it. My charecter hs to be front lines and the cleric couldn't hack it.

 

Warning: Uncharitable Rant Grossly Exposing My Gaming Preferences

I'm not voting because monks aren't on the list. I hate monks. I like an "Arthurian" flavored game, and monks don't fit the bill. I hated them in 1E, and I hate them more now. "Ooh, it's the magic hand of death!" "Hiya!" As if David Carradine wasn't bad enough with his little sideways peace sign. This should be a game about Monty Python and the Holy Grail, not Return of the Dragon or Karate Kid. And the kensai can take a hike right along with the monk.

The only thing that sucks almost as bad as a monk is a bard. The original concept was okay (fighter turned thief turned bard under druidic tutelage), but the 2E bard is just plain stupid. Learn to play guitar and suddenly you gain innate spells? Role-playing went out the window on that one.

You can add sorcerer too. I like them for powergaming, but otherwise they suck. They are arguably the most powerful class in the game, and the premise is that they basically just exude power because, well, just because! In BG2, their prime requisite is intelligence, but they have no penalties for having a low intelligence score, and no benefits for having a high one. Poorly thought out for role-playing.

Next are druids. Stupid tree-huggers. What the heck are they doing in dungeons and towers? All this crap about "balance this" and "balance that." Go back to your grove. At least Cernd acts the part -- and he's an idiot. Baldur's druids are nothing like the historic Irish druids, and for some bizarre reason their powers in this game are almost all designed to work just as well in non-natural settings as in natural settings. No thanks!

And wizard slayers? What hypocrites! They shouldn't be able to use any magic items at all. And letting them use weapons and armor is almost no limitation at all.

So, what do I like? I know, I know -- you think I'm an idiot and you don't care what I like. That's cool. But just to get it out in the open: vanilla fighters, vanilla clerics, vanilla mages, vanilla thieves. These are the heart and soul of role-playing a good medieval campaign, in my book. Simplify, get rid of the silly gimmicks, and develop a character based on your own imagination and actions. Any character class or kit with too many bells and whistles just gets in the way of the game.

 

@ Niskers

I have to admit, I had some reservations putting fighters on the poll, as they are very useful characters, and the earlier in the BG series you go, the more important they are. It's just that they become obsolete by ToB, when they really can't do much more than a Paladin or Ranger. I used vanilla fighter, because kensais still can out damage the paladins and fighters, and beserkers can make themselves immune to a lot of stuff a lot easier than the paladins and rangers, and even the wizard slayer has an ability that other classes cannot easily reproduce - but the regular fighter doesn't.

 

Vanilla cleric. I mean, go big or go home.

 

Now that was the biggest piece of something I've ever heard, I mean... Wizard Slayer useless? Ever played one? Too powerful I'd say. I cannot see that you've played one all through.

Bounty Hunters are extremly powerful in SoA, in ToB, most classes are overpowered in a way or another, so it doesn't really matter what you go IMO.

Druids, I mean c'mon. Sure, vanilla Clerics suck because you can get a kit with no penalty, though the Cleric is still one of the most powerful classes. Druids are well capable of soloing, and they're just as good as any cleric, though they go summon instead of über-buffing.

Plain Fighters, well I mean goddamn! Ever heard of Dual-classing? You can get a mage with five stars in bow. At high levels, you can have a high mastery in both melee and ranged weapons, mayby you don't use it *that* much in BG, though in P&P it's always good to have a nice melee and a bow.

Why does people start these kinds of threads, without even playing the best out of them..

 

@Spetz - I said that wizard slayers have an ability other classes cannot easily reproduce. That's a compliment - I wasn't slamming them! Or were you referring to Bombur?

 

Bombur: I couldn't have put my own thoughts to words better than you did! Well, I love vanilla fighters best of all, then I guess mages. The last time I played, I defeated Mel in like 15 sec, and my PC was a mage. But fighters rule.
As for the worst class, well - bards and monks are pretty close to the very bottom. And druids, too.

 

I said the jester... I hate bards.. they're boring in BG2... and every subclass I've tried has been too weak to be fun... Maybe I'm just not a finess fighter eh? But I know in 3rd Ed P&P playing a jester type bard is fun and hilarious!

 

ah you guys suck. Can't please everyone all the time.

Sorcerers rock the s***. More roleplaying there then all the characters stacked together. (Your dad was a mage. You have the blood of a god. It doesn't get any easier than that.)

Druid spells working on non-natural mosters/settings makes sense. They're all about keeping the balance and keeping nature on top. Would it make sense that they could only wreck stuff that was green? That would be counter-productive, to say the least. Sides, their mostly about summoning. (Although Elemental summoning doesn't make much sense, I'll admit.)

hmmm... well, it seems you guys only half-suck because I agree on everything else... uh, smilie? yeah. smilie.

 

I voted for the specialist mages. They simply don't make any sense to me, since you're giving up vital spells, and are forced to take extra stats which are not useful to a mage. While lots of the other kits/classes are useless, none of them actually handicap your basic class like the specialist mages (except the beast master. . .).

And I don't think bounty hunters should be there. Early in the game, the extra traps are very helpful, and no matter what traps you get through HLA's, being able to maze a whole group of enemies is still pretty useful. . .