POLL: Least enjoyable character class

Remove all ads!

Which class(es) did you find least enjoyable to make and play. Add your comments to the replies section.

I found rogues to be so sneaky as to be useless. Paladins have so many stats to take care of and a "dumb" sword for being one "Cera Dumbness". Barbarians are actually handicapped by the rage so why bother.

My 2 cents.

[ November 04, 2002, 23:09: Message edited by: Extremist ]

Poll Information
This poll contains 3 question(s). 45 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Least enjoyable character class. (45 votes.)

Which class did you find least enjoyable to make and play? (Choose 1)
* Barbarian - 7% (3)
* Bard - 22% (10)
* Cleric - 2% (1)
* Druid - 11% (5)
* Fighter - 2% (1)
* Monk - 11% (5)
* Paladin - 9% (4)
* Ranger - 13% (6)
* Rogue - 13% (6)
* Sorcerer - 2% (1)
* Wizard - 7% (3)

Which class was the second least enjoyable? (Choose 1)
* Barbarian - 16% (7)
* Bard - 22% (10)
* Cleric - 0% (0)
* Druid - 18% (8)
* Fighter - 0% (0)
* Monk - 9% (4)
* Paladin - 9% (4)
* Ranger - 11% (5)
* Rogue - 11% (5)
* Sorcerer - 2% (1)
* Wizard - 2% (1)

Which class was the third least enjoyable? (Choose 1)
* Barbarian - 16% (7)
* Bard - 11% (5)
* Cleric - 0% (0)
* Druid - 18% (8)
* Fighter - 2% (1)
* Monk - 7% (3)
* Paladin - 11% (5)
* Ranger - 16% (7)
* Rogue - 11% (5)
* Sorcerer - 2% (1)
* Wizard - 7% (3)

 

For me, I think the least enjoyable is mixing this with that and having more than 2 different multiclasses and not being able to specialize in anything, just be mediocre at many things.

IWD II demands you be special in certain areas. You can't meet half the requirements. I like my Monk of the Broken Order Monk 8 and Rogue 4. But I think I should've just left her a monk. So she hasn't been that enjoyable because she seems pretty weak. I mean in BG2 my monk was tearing the house down. But I will do a straight monk sometime and see how that works.

So I'm going for a multi-classed monk. Forget'em. Stick with a straight monk.

 

If you want to multiclass a monk I would say do it with fighter for the bab and feats, 4 levels of fighter will get you specialization in unarmed as well which might be useful.

 

Personally I find the rogue to be the most enjoyable character. Much more interesting than, say, a straight out fighter class. Rogues are good for sneaking & scouting, traps, chests, stealing stuff, stabbing in the back and with a few well placed skill points they can also hold their own in a battle. Rogues offer a lot more user interaction.

 

Yeah you forgot they are good at dying, but ok.

No seriously unless somebody can convince me that this "sneak attack" is actually good or something I'll never do another true or mc rouge again. I'll stick with a bard and since they get so many skill points, take care of my trap disarming and lock picking that way. At least the bard can cast support spells and sing.

 

An invisible rogue with boots of speed and a +4 dagger in both hands is a formidable opponent. Otherwise in regular melee I let my rogue play with a crossbow or bow. Keep him out of immediate danger and also a good body guard for my mage.

 

Sneak attack is only useful if you are standing behind your opponent. My rogue is my most useful character, since, I give everyone a break, give him the dash, weapon finesse, ambidexterity, two weapon fighting feats and multiclass him with a fighter for a good attack bonus.

Needless to say, he always hits on sneak attack, and dual wielding the moonblade and a short sword is quite effective.

 

I also like to multiclass rogues with fighter (monk is interesting too). I like to use fireballs and stuff like that so I cannot praise their evasion and improved evasion high enough Sneak attack is very interesting too, I use it often and to good effect

As for fireballs and fire in general: A cleric and a mage with the "spririt of flame" feat casting a flamestrike or fireball are just incredibly effective. In IWD-2 especially a pure fighter is a very enjoyable class to play. Pretty restricted in his interaction they are the mainstay of every party. A pure barbarian (or maybe with 4 fighter levels) is very interesting too. However, a paladin offers wonderful roleplaying dialogue options when talking to evil creatures and his saves and abilities are very handy too, lay on hands especially.

[ November 01, 2002, 12:25: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I'll never figure out why people dislike both monks and rogues so much, i've never played a normal monk(non HOF), it seems to me they wouldn't be nearly as powerful with the low lvs, but HOF monk is really quite good, with highest natural ac, almost infinite blink effect, and stealth, she makes a great scout and still has similiar kill numbers to my fighter/pal with a 2 hander.
My rogue X/barb 1/rng 1 is even better, dual wielding golden heart and tsuki no ken(bonus merchant, otherwise it'd be brilliant sword) he deals out 80 dmg backstabs then runs off to hide and does it again when the monsters get to party, he has the most kills by far in my party.

 

monks are incredibly crappy at low levels.. you get them so that later in the game you know that they will be a powerhouse ,as then they show their true potential.. but they do start out with a good ac

 

At the beginning I used my monk for scouting only, leaving him inactive in melee using expertise or relying on his sling as his primary weapon. Pretty effective class - however, I was a little unhappy with multiclassing to a rogue.

I agree with joaqin that 4 fighter levels are a good investment for e monk-to-be. I also got a very good char when I *dualed* a lvl-6 monk to a wizard once - only drawback is that robes eliminate the monk's AC bonus

[ November 02, 2002, 00:43: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I dualed my monk to cleric early. It's kinda cool since you get the Wisdom bonus to AC ( there is a ring in Kuldahar which give +5 wis) and the evasion along with the cleric spells.

 

Now my fighter has reached level-12 I give her a few rogue levels (a) to improve conversation skills (intimidate/ bluff/ diplomacy) and (b) to gain sneak attack and evasion. On the other hand I could have chosen monk levels instead ... multiclassing is a very tricky business Probably monk levels would have been smarter anyway, save-wise especially, anyway, I'm too lazy to reload now

[ November 03, 2002, 16:11: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Monks lose all monk abilities if they multi class outside of their specialty. Eg. Of the broken order to fighter would not be able to progress in monk. Im pretty sure about that anyway.

I actually found the worst to be the paladin and then the druid. The paladins just arent as good as they used to be, and they werent all that good to start with. At least in bg2 they got casomyr, but the IWD and IWD2 paladin specialty swords were useless. The druid only because the werent that effective in battle.

[ November 04, 2002, 07:32: Message edited by: Baezlebub ]

 

Baezlebub,
You can multiclass a monk with a fighter: The trick works like that: Give him 4 fighter levels first, then choose monk levels Second error: A monk does not loose all his special abilities when multiclassing with anything outside his order, to the contrary, he keeps them. However, he cannot advance in his monk class any longer. Slight difference.

As for pure paladins, they indeed may lack feats, however, they have a decent BAB, handy immunities, special abilities, great saves, spellcasting - especially their lay on hands makes them very worthwhile to have in a party, they can recover from battle damage very fast. Though possibly less powerful than in BG-1/2 they are still a very effective and powerful class.

[ November 04, 2002, 15:20: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Actually, I found the Paladin of Helm to be very enjoyable to play- I went over the requisite 4 fighter levels for specialization and kept his fighter level at half his paladin level until he hit the cap. At 20/10 pally/fighter he had decent spellcasting, lay on hands, and turn undead and all the feats he needed. Back up a Paladin with a Rogue and you have enough bases covered to have a good two-member party.

I found the Bard to be the most disappointing class. In IWD1 they got loads of bonus conversation options and the War Chant of Sith was absolutely incredible in battle. Now it seems that it helps my enemies a lot more than it helps me.

[ November 04, 2002, 18:02: Message edited by: knightlight ]

 

I think that most enjoyable char class is a mage. first they suck but when you gain exp they kick some serious butt.

 

I love my rogue! The crafty halfling thief/ranger, Nimbul Alewine, is by far my favorite character!! He's the one pc I tend to control throughout a fight, always moving him into the best position for a sneak attack!

He only has 2 levels of Ranger, the rest is Rogue (currently 8), but he is a blast! Dual wielding a dagger and shortsword, with a shortbow for melee attacks...

My next favorite is my Half-Orc Fighter Barbarian, Azog Skullcleaver. He is the ultimate tank! He can wade into battle with multiple foes, battering away with a 23 Strength (without spell help)/Power Attack 5/and Greater Cleave...Chunky bits all over!

[ November 04, 2002, 21:57: Message edited by: Sir Belisarius ]

 

Clerics....Uggh. I love rangers.

 

Ragusa
Thanks, i wasnt quite sure about the deal with the monks. I have only just finished the game and am doing it again for the second time, going with only 3 people. I havent used a monk yet, only read the class thing breifly.