Right on spot. But, about 2, any arcane spellcaster is top notch.

It's hard to imagine so many people would simply ignore the actual question. But you may be right.

For BG1 only I guess fighter/thief is the most fun class to play.

The question was "What is your favorite class for the primary character for both BG1 and BG2. " While that could (and technically should, I think) be interpreted as "what's your favourite class for the main character out of those which are available in the same form in both BG1 and BG2", it seems to me that the OP was meaning the rather less...arbitrary question "what's your favourite class for BG1, and what's your favourite class for BG2?" With that interpretation, people were just answering the second part of the question - and, admittedly, ignoring the first part. My theory as to why is that there are a lot more class options in BG2 with kits and so forth, so it's much more likely that one of the options will particularly appeal to a player and they'll offer an opinion here. Personally, I don't have a very strong opinion on which class I most enjoy in BG1 or BG2, so I didn't contribute to the conversation. Perhaps in the same way, people who only feel strongly about an option which is available in BG2 didn't feel the need to make a comment about BG1's class selection?

Another reason that class selection in BG2 is more significant is that it has a larger impact on how the party plays. In BG1, there are less different classes, and dual classing isn't common. Thus to an extent it's not that important what the PC's class is, as the player can choose NPCs with other classes they find enjoyable. The decision of whether your favourite class is a mage or a thief isn't so significant when all your parties can contain both of them. There are exceptions (fighter>mage dual class, for instance) but they're generally either bad anyway (certain multiclasses) or only fairly minor changes from an option that is available (fighter>mage compared to pure mage).

In BG2, there are many more choices, and a few less NPCs. Thus, there are a lot of options which are only available to the PC, and the decision of which class you want to play becomes something people put much more thought into.

On another note, personally my favourite class is almost invariably "whatever is as different as possible to the last couple of characters I played in RPGs, while still being enjoyable".

I know what the question was, and I know that people weren't answering it. I made a comment, but I didn't dwell upon the whys. I tend not to do that when I make off-the-cuff remarks.

Paladin, don't know why, but I like this class and I never play bad guys in RPGs.
And, this class can wield Carsomyr!

My favourite class is the wizard, either necromancer or conjurer, which is the one I tend to play more often in D&D games.

I like having lots of spells and the possibility to change my selection every 8 hours, to adapt to whatever I'll have to deal with. Another great choice for me, in BG2 and other AD&D games, is the wizard/cleric, or illusionist/cleric, in order to have even more spells. :)

Baldur's Gate doesn't have a high enough level cap to make the most out of any class. Baldur's Gate 2 is where things get real. Even fighters can't get enough grand mastery in BG1, and druids are hard pressed to even make mid level and druids are mostly a liability until then. It's no wonder Jaheira is dual class which only serves to drag her down in BG2. Not only that but the addition of kits and additional spells boost even low to mid levels in BG2.

It is a shame that both games hand you thieves. Imoen and Yoshimo are both capable thieves from the outset who will serve for the entire game. I know thieves are mandatory and the game is simply providing them for the sake of necessity but it does make playing a thief rather redundant. Also pure thieves are lackluster. Cross-classing makes up the difference but then you're sharing expee for the sake of longbows/mastery and spells. I can't see any advantage to playing as a pure thief.
Actually I forgot I shelved my fighter and my current playthrough is as a Monk. I haven't heard much about Monks. It's going pretty good so far. The notion that one can out-fight a fighter while wearing and wielding nothing at all is pretty sweet. It's rather liberating not having to worry much about weapons and equipment. Instead of hoarding all the good stuff for myself I can pawn it off to my fellow adventurers and *they* can make a killing. Everyone's better for it :)

Plus this is the first time I've played through BG2 as a heroine. Not much has changed other than not having to endure Arie or Jaheira hit on me incessantly XD

I disagree.

Yes, in Baldur's Gate 1 there are plenty of NPCs of all classes available right from the start. But in BG2, there isn't a good thief to be had.

Yoshimo is the closest thing, but even he is a mediocre backstabber, and there are other difficulties with the character as anyone who's played the game will know. Bottom line is you can't rely on him to have your thieving done.

And there are no other NPC thieves in the game. Only dual-class or multi-class thief-mages. Jan Jansen is the next best thing after Yoshimo, and for backstabbing... well, let's say it'd take a more daring person than I to use -that- guy as my behinds-the-line infiltrator.

So I actually think that playing a thief is one of the best choices a PC can make in BG2. You'll add the most to the party, since nobody else can deliver a decent backstab. Yes, multi- or dual-classing is still the best bet for the PC, but since BG2 is high level you will still have the maximum backstab multiplier, enough skillpoints to master all the thief-skills you want and high-level abilities aplenty when you get to ToB.

Now, if you say that a PC specialising in locks and traps is redundant in BG2, I'd agree wholeheartedly. Because those two skills are so essential, the game keeps throwing NPCs who have them at you. But there is a lot more to a thief than locks and traps. Stealth, backstabbing, setting traps, detecting illusions: all the thief-kits will do quite well in party-play, and even the plain thief will be useful as a PC. (Though I can't imagine anyone not selecting a kit or multiclass, since they're much better.)

Regarding yesterday's argument: with the Baldur's Gate Trilogy, there's no reason you can't play a BG2 class through BG1, so why not answer the question as though that's the case?

I just beat BG1 as a Monk and really enjoyed it. I was interested in the novelty of playing as a class I hadn't ever played before and that sounded like a challenge with big rewards.

I was prepared for the worst, and it really wasn't bad at all, except for a few fights when a bigger tank might have helped (e.g., Sarevok). I made sure to give him lots of gear that helped him not get hit (boots of avoidance, girdle of bluntness, and that blurring cloak, for instance), and he ended up being pretty badass. I can't wait to keep leveling him up in the harder games and get some of the really nice abilities. Might be my new favorite DnD class--I was kind of getting tired of Fighters.

Yeah my current Monk playthrough just trashed itself. It got FUBAR'd by the godaweful quest design - again. This time it was Anomen who I've never ventured with before. I opened a thread here complaining about this once. BG2 quest design takes the p*ss. I need to start maintaining saves for *hours* so I can revert the next time the abysmal quest structure screws me over without having to trash the whole playthrough. I've lost tract of the number of times I've failed to finished BG2 by having made a wrong move during quests, waited too long to do something when I've already got a dozen different things to do, etc. One of these days I'll finish just by virtue of having fallen in to all the bloody pitfalls first.

This is definitely "classic" game design.

Anyway, back on topic. I too began my Monk playthrough on a "novelty" as you say because I've never played a monk before. It is underwhelming to say the least. With more combat abilities and some divine magic the class would play better. I always thought of the monk as a combination cleric-fighter-rougue type. She played well enough but she didn't kick butt like a well armed fighter could. A faster attack speed alone would suffice. 3e Monk is definitely superior. I found myself wielding a flaming longsword anyway which I just thought defeated the purpose.

Also, faster movement speed is just about the most worthless thing I've ever seen when you can only move as fast as your slowest party member which is .... everyone else. I got tired of waiting for everyone to catch up.

It's great tactically, though. Rush those archers, hit those mages with a stunning blow before they get a spell in. And for scouting, which you can do thanks to stealth. In big wilderness areas (which, admittedly, BG2 only has a very few of) you can find enemies much more quickly and save your party from having to run around.

Plus, you can get 2 pairs of boots of speed by mid/late BG2. Then half your party is moving fast. And by ToB you can find five pairs of boots of speed. Enough for everyone who isn't a monk.

Monks -do- get an extra half attack every three levels. Which is way, way more than any other class in the game.

The thing about the monk class is that it's very weak early on. But by the time you get magic resistance, 4 attacks per round and 1-20 damage per hit... well, it's a different story. By the time you hit level 15-20 they'll be very, very capable. Much better than a plain fighter, I'd say, though fighter multiclasses would still be more flexible.

Doesn't help in BG1, of course, but then monks weren't designed for BG1.

Agreed with the previous poster. Monks can use swords if needed (mainly I think this is an option to help balance the inability to hit some enemies early on with non-enchanted fists), but if you take a weapon, you lose the faster attacks you'd get with your fists--so I don't think it defeats the purpose at all. It's more hindrance than help.

The game is very well designed in the sense that it pushes you to use every party member differently. If you think a class is weak, it's probably because you're trying to play it like a different class (e.g., using a monk as a fighter) and not making the most of its actual advantages. It's also true that the monk sacrifices power at low levels in favor of power at high levels, but that's kind of the point of playing a monk.

Backtracking halfway across the game to get a slightly better quest outcome also seems like playing it wrong. The game gives you lots of difficult choices, and pretty much everything has its consequences. You can't win them all. Or you can, with a walkthrough, but you don't have to. I think the design is quite realistic in that sometimes things go wrong.

Realistic, sure. But not fun ... for me anyway. I have to deal with consequences irl. It sucks. It sucks in escapist entertainment as well. Other RPGs handle the whole consequence thing better anyway. Baldur's Gate just seems to punish you for playing certain ways. Good luck getting a power trip from playing a bad guy in BG. The game says, "No. That's bad. Bad adventurer. Now go back and do it right or we'll wreck your s@#% again." It's even worse that the most interesting companions are of evil and chaotic alignment. It's like the game is tempting you with entertaining characters as opposed to the tedious and obnoxious ones and then punishing you for playing them. BG2 is also notoriously nondescript when it comes to making choices. It is rarely apparent that there even is a choice being made much less any idea as to its later implications and few opportunities to recover from bad choices later on (there shouldn't even *be* any 'bad' choices). The scenario design limits roleplay. It's not about "What would you do in this situation?". Roleplaying games have certainly gotten better at this, even in Biowaste's own lineup.

I would have preferred this playthrough to have lasted long enough to make the most out of my monk. Monks have their uses but they seem limited. I'll take a mage for power gaming over a monk anyway. The Monk would certainly benefit from divine magic and a more rogue-like skillset and additional combat abilities. As it stands the monk mostly just automatically improves with level regardless of player input (which is largely true for 2e classes anyway). But outfitting a fighter would accomplish the same thing and be more hands on to boot. It doesn't help that there is no equipment specifically tailored for monks. It's easy to improvise but some monk-centric arms and armor that compliment their playstyle without compromising it would be much appreciated. It's like the monk was included as an afterthought with little to no consideration to how it fits in with the rest of the game. 3e Monk is much more fleshed out and better realized. It's almost as if 2e Monk as it exists in BG2 stopped far short of being a full character class. It's like the template for an idea not yet fully realized.

I'm gonna try a sorcerer next.