Which class benefits the most from experience?

[Aeronth]

Hello there,

Title says it all.
I have searched for it, but couldn't find exactly what I was looking for. In your opinion, at 2.95kk exp, which class has improved the most since lv1 ? And, if the answer is different, which one is the strongest at 2.95kk exp ?

I'm not taking gear into consideration here, but you may provide both answers (with and without gear) if you find it relevant.

My guess would be Barbarian or Monk, since AFAIK they get interesting resistances or immunities every 3 or 4 levels.

Thanks!

[Blomdor]

IMO, mage and/or sorcerer hands down, and the latter in particular. The arcane spells in the BG series become utterly ridiculous at higher levels and allow them to do things no other class can dream of. Spells like protection from magic weapons and stoneskin give them almost unlimited invulnerability to physical attacks while their area-effect damage and crowd control spells let them do far more damage to a large group of enemies than the other classes. They simply become too difficult to damage, let alone kill, for a class that is normally supposed to be a glass cannon. They get almost everything; the best summons, the best damage spells, the best tanking ability, the best crowd control. With the right buffs, they can literally protect themselves from very nearly any attack, even attempts to bring said protections down.

The downside to this godlike power at the end of the game is a somewhat difficult start; however, sleep is very, very good in BG1 and they get stoneskin, one of the most prominent of their many stupidly powerful defensive buffs, at the very start of BG2. They go from useful, to frightening, to absolutely insane.

[sear]

Yeah, Wizards, Sorcerers and Clerics are by far the most overpowered classes, although Clerics slightly less so at the very high levels. There really is no contest - enemies outpace most fighter types later in the game and develop much greater resistance to physical attacks. It's typical D&D.

That said, a balanced party is always best, and focusing on raw power is only part of the equation - consider utility when picking classes, whether you want to abuse resting, or want to be able to pick every lock, etc. Just because Wizards are awesome at high levels doesn't mean that you should play as a Wizard - they are weak early on when you only have 1-3 spells per day, and not very fun for that matter. Late game play shouldn't be the only concern.

Monks are cool, but ultimately not as good as fighters in my mind (though probably more versatile), while Barbarian is good but only situationally useful and much better when multi-classed with Fighter levels. That said I'm also more familiar with the 3.5 rules because I've been playing so much NWN2 lately - Baldur's Gate 2 might be different.

[Ares2382]

Pretty much what others have said. Spell casters are the more powerful of the classes at that level.

But I would say that at that particular level Wizards and Sorcerors are pretty even with Clerics because unlike Clerics who will have all their spells available to them by then, Wizards and Sorcerors aren't quiet at full power yet. With the amount of XP you listed they are only lvl 17, which means no level 9 spells. But they're almost there, and once they hit 18 and gain those level 9 spells, they become so much more powerful then any other class. Timestop and Chain Contingency alone are super powerful spells. And there are a couple of other nice spells at lvl 9 as well.

[Wrathful]

Barbarian is good but only situationally useful and much better when multi-classed with Fighter levels

Yeah, Barbs can't multi-class in ToB.

Sorcerers are the most overpowered class, and can solo the game most easily. C/M can also solo the game easily, but I wouldn't call single-class clerics overpowered at all. In fact, I would choose a warrior type over cleric any time.

[Aeronth]

I have been trying it for a while and can't help but agree... Sorcerors are completely broken with BG2 resting rules.
It kind of makes me feel sad... I prefer fighters' "look and feel".

Thanks for your answers.

[Blomdor]

Agreed. They get so many cool weapons and items to play with in BG2. My favorite team ever had 4 single-classed fighter types and each felt remarkably different from the others. Sorcs, meanwhile, can forgo any equipment at all and still just PfMW+Sunfire everything to death and Skull Trap the survivors. It's just silly. They have answers to EVERYTHING in their spellbooks, which just kills the need for any real party support. Notice how many of the more overpowered spells do not re-appear in other DnD-based games; Icewind Dale II would be a joke with PfMW.

I get ranty about this topic because I have uninstalled this game more than once just out of sheer frustration at how idiotically powerful mages are on both sides. Is it just me, or do later battles just devolve into "KILL THE WIZARD NOW OR WE'RE ALL DEAD! Quick, wizard, make yourself immune to everything and go tank those 5 baalors while we desperately try to get through his stoneskin before he confuses us and blows us to smithereens! Except you, of course."*

*Granted, I play with SCSII which makes a point of making sure enemy mages can abuse their spells almost as well as the player can in some ways. It's significantly less infuriating with prebuffs off and not a big deal at all without any mods, but still noticeable. This does nothing to nerf the casters on the player's side, however.

[Aeronth]

I disagree with the coolness of fighters' equipment. Fighter kits are great and fun to play, but I think their magical weapons and armors... aren't magic enough.

Besides the Holy Avenger's daring 50% magic resistance (restricted to Paladins... sigh), it seems that devs were afraid of creating really powerful fighter weapons and plate armors.
AC itself hardly matters in later battles, since spells deal massive damage or incapacitate PCs. Fighters also have far too few ways to reduce (not avoid) incoming physical damage.
I think top tier weapons should be able to bypass, at least in part, some mage buffs, e.g., deplete target's Stoneskin charges faster.

[NocturneN]

I get ranty about this topic because I have uninstalled this game more than once just out of sheer frustration at how idiotically powerful mages are on both sides. Is it just me, or do later battles just devolve into "KILL THE WIZARD NOW OR WE'RE ALL DEAD! Quick, wizard, make yourself immune to everything and go tank those 5 baalors while we desperately try to get through his stoneskin before he confuses us and blows us to smithereens! Except you, of course."*

Hehe, I both agree and don't agree with you here. The feelings you describe was mostly true for me in early BG1 (New to both the series and the D&D rules) when I sent in all my fighters, only to have them feared or incapacitated (hold person etc) and wondering to myself "Erm...ok what now? Whole party is rendered useless." But then I found the "Turn off AI"-button and learned to keep my rangers focused on the enemy spellcasters, and as they don't have Stoneskin in BG1 (If I remember correctly). But then they began to use "Protection from Normal Missiles" instead, which, if I recall, the only option was to dispel.

Up until about mid-SoA it was a constant battle to keep up with enemy Mages and find ways to counter their protections, aswell as avoiding their CC and damage. The battle was won when I found Breach, then lost again when they began using Illusions like Mislead/Projected Image. Which is countered by Truesight. And then they began to cast Abi-Dalzims all over the place, forcing me to learn about "Protection from Magic Energy", and after that...after that, in my opinion, Mage battles became easy.

You have to keep in mind that Fighters will be Fighters, while Mages will be Mages. Mages being ridicilously overpowered in fantasy settings is nothing new, I've seen it in pretty much every RPG I've ever played, bar only a few. Fighters on the hand are usually bad solo, reliant upon weapons and armor aswell as their team members to survive. And that's a mechanic that is very true in BG: Alone, most fighters are completely useless. But buffed up with Cleric spells like Chaotic Commands, Regeneration, etc they become whirling machines of destruction. Typically, in most of the latter ToB fights what determined who won and who lost for me was if I could get Regeneration up in time; If Minsc could get his Hardiness/Armor of Faith up before taking massive damage, etc. Combined with Cleric protections and selfbuffs, fighters felt just as strong as Mages, for me. After all, all you need to do to stop a Mage is to dispel him.

It should be noted that I play vanilla, however, as I've mentioned before. However, I never pre-buff, except for when my PC would know a fight was coming, or when I, the player suspected it. Protection from Evil was usually up whenever I explored a new area (My first playthrough, so I really had no idea what was coming most of the time), Chaotic Commands if I suspected a CC-heavy fight was coming. But if I died and had to redo the fight, I never stopped to pre-buff but went in again with whatever I had up, and most fights can still be beaten like that, so that is a good rule I think.

If you don't enjoy your modded game, Blomdor, why not disable some mods and have fun? A game must be challenging, true, but when it becomes frustrating, it's time to rethink, imo. Remember, playing video games are ultimately about having fun, if you're not, then you're doing something wrong.

Finally, about resting: I never rest unless I've wasted most of my spells, or if the party has been fatigued for some time. It makes it much more challenging, you have to be careful to not waste important spells. Isn't there a mod out there that limits how often you can rest? Techincally, you shouldn't be allowed to rest unless 24 hours had passed, but realistically, it'd need to be more than that. Maybe 3 days after a rest until you can rest again? I'd greatly enjoy that.

[galraen]

In SoA resting is very abusable, at least it you rested in an open area in BG1 you had a good opportunity to get attacked by 'wandering' monsters.

The major cause of the problems people have mentioned in this, and other threads is piss poor DMing. The likes of stoneskin and PFMW are only available because Bioware/Black Isle were daft enough to put them in the game. As it happens I haven't played p'n'p AD&D since midway through the life of 2ED, before spells like Stonesikin had been invented. Had it been you can bet your life it would never have been found, by players or 'monsters'. We did have HLAs for straight fighters, I invented them (independently) myself over 30 years ago, not quite the same as the ones in the game, some of them more powerful, just to encourage players to have straight fighters. The other encouragement of course is to make sure they understand that without fighters or other non-spell casters to stand guard while the spell casters regained their spells, the chances are they never would regain them, or even wake up again!

[NocturneN]

In SoA resting is very abusable, at least it you rested in an open area in BG1 you had a good opportunity to get attacked by 'wandering' monsters.

That is true, and something I'd actually not thought about. I was very dissapointed with random encounters and wandering monsters in SoA, and in ToB it's even non-existant. I guess it boils down to that SoA has way too many "safe areas" where you can rest, the outdoors maps and dungeons are way too small, imo. Traversing the Cloakwood Forest in BG1 was a complete blast because of it's size and the multiple rest periods it incurred. Not to mention the Pocket Plane in ToB which imo was a terrible idea overall. They could've atleast limited it's number of uses per day, or week, even.

The major cause of the problems people have mentioned in this, and other threads is piss poor DMing. The likes of stoneskin and PFMW are only available because Bioware/Black Isle were daft enough to put them in the game. As it happens I haven't played p'n'p AD&D since midway through the life of 2ED, before spells like Stonesikin had been invented. Had it been you can bet your life it would never have been found, by players or 'monsters'. We did have HLAs for straight fighters, I invented them (independently) myself over 30 years ago, not quite the same as the ones in the game, some of them more powerful, just to encourage players to have straight fighters. The other encouragement of course is to make sure they understand that without fighters or other non-spell casters to stand guard while the spell casters regained their spells, the chances are they never would regain them, or even wake up again!

YOU invented HLAs? You're saying you were involved in the development of AD&D? Suddenly, my disagreements with you over game mechanics awhile ago makes me feel quite stupid...

"Mages are rarely seen without a retinue of fighters and men-at-arms travelling with them" - I think the Mage description reads. I can do naught than agree with you here, honestly. I never felt that Mages were weak in ToB, quite the contrary, but that fighters were actually not as bad as many people make them out to be. I still think Fighters are powerful in ToB, and I had a blast with Minscs HLAs - but from your explanation I can certainly see the problem more clearly.

[galraen]

YOU invented HLAs? You're saying you were involved in the development of AD&D? Suddenly, my disagreements with you over game mechanics awhile ago makes me feel quite stupid...

I invented for my group, not WOC, I still think mine were better, but I am a tad biased.