This isn't PvP, you don't need maximum attack bonus to curb-stomp the encounters. More flexibility is preferable to a few points of base attack bonus. Yes, I built in a lot of Rogue levels, because I personally enjoy (and recommend) the flexibility that this proportion of classes provides. It's more than powerful enough to handle everything in the official campaigns.

Also, for most of your career you will have the same number of attacks as a single-class Fighter. It's not really that much slower of a progression at all, and if you're playing into HotU you've permanently caught up by the 20th level.

If you're going to do this, then aiming for the Weapon Master prestige class makes sense. Single-class Fighter gives way more feats than you can reasonably use, and putting them towards qualification for Weapon Master pays off nicely.

This I agree with. A build that can easily survive at the start is more important than a powerful one in chapter 4.

However, on that same note, I would advice against specialising in Greatswords. Get a tower shield instead.

In this game, armour class is king and attack bonus queen. (If you're a fighter. Wizards say "meh" to both of them.) The shield always makes a huge difference, whether it's the +3 armour class from a shield at the first levels and the +6-7 AC from a shield at high levels. Not to mention that the shield can have extra magic properties, like elemental damage resistance.

If a typical low-level trash enemy needs a 15 to hit your low-level fighter, the shield will make that into an 18. That means you effectively take half as much damage. If that enemy originally needed a 17 to hit, it becomes a 20. In that case, the shield will block 75% of all attacks that would otherwise have hit. That's worth dealing less damage for.

Not to mention that you can always still bring a greatsword in case you run into a spellcaster or something.

Step 1 to less frustration: have a character that can survive longer. Shields play a huge role in this.

As for prestige classes: the only one I'd recommend to new players in this case is Champion of Torm. No annoying qualifications (except weapon focus, which they'll be taking anyway) and all it does is be a fighter with some fun extra abilities and better saves. (Albeit mostly useless extra abilities, but hey. Smite Evil still helps a bit even if you have low charisma.)

Sword and Board has a small overall mechanical advantage, but it is more fun to do more damage and kill enemies faster, and it is situational.

But generally I subscribe to: "The best defense is a good offense" axiom.

Dead enemies do no damage. The sooner they are dead, the sooner they do no damage. Also helps cutting through enemy DR, which could tip even the mechanical advantage in favor of the big weapon, not just the fun advantage.

A Longsword with 18 str averages 8.5 dam/round.
A Greatsword with 18 str averages 13 dam/round.

Throw in DR 5 and you are in for a LONG fight using a shield. You are doing more than double damage with GS in this case.

That said, I always have multiple weapon sets (Two Handed/Weapon+Shield/Ranged).

My alternate Weapon/Shield, Usually has alternate damage type (Warhammer) that I only use when my HP are knocked down, and/or I need the alternate damage type.

I start every fight with my big weapon, and kill my enemies faster, and only switch if I need a breather (switch to shield, drink potion).

Basically use some common sense on when to switch but I see no reason to generally not favor the big, high damage weapon as the default choice, and only use shield when you really need a shield.

Playing the OC I remember the satisfaction after I switched to this method and you get one shot kills on Mobs, followed by cleave one shot kills. The fight is nearly over when you drop two in the opening round. Plus it is just so damn sweet when that happens.

The damage differential is big at low levels, but it shrinks as you advance.

At level 1 it's 7.5 vs. 11 damage = almost 50% more.

At level 4 you'll have Weapon Specialisation, and quite possibly a longsword +1, so the actual damage will be 10.5/11.5 vs. 14/15 damage. With the +1 sword, it's 30% more. Still good, but not quite as big a deal.

Against a DR 5 enemy at level 4, without the +1 sword, the greatsword deals an average of 9 damage, the longsword an average of 5.5 damage. The greatsword deals 60% more. Much more, but not more than twice as much.

Now, I don't disagree that it's more fun to chop through weak enemies quickly. And besides, the official campaign isn't that hard, the odd bloated dire spider in chapter 1 aside. I suppose that in the end it's mostly a question of preference and style, though I agree it's always a good idea to carry both weapons.

It shrinks based on the availability of magic, as the 50% bonus to strength damage continues.

But my point is all about low levels, that most need the fun damage bonus. And again, you can always have a backup weapon set with shield. Also it isn't like you suffer at high levels from using a Greatsword.

Bottom line, I just don't see the point in sacrificing the extra damage, unless you really are having a problem being pummeled, and I think your original anti-Greatsword comment was overstated.

Maybe we can both agree that Dual-Wielding sucks. ;)

I love Dual Wielding. I always go for it when I am playing a rogue. I cant say it is the best but it certainly feels good in role playing perspective.

It's good for a rogue, because all that sneak attack damage gets added to your off-hand attacks. Also, if you're attacking from stealth, all your attacks in the first flurry will be sneak attacks, whilst those in the second and third won't be. If you have at least 7 attacks (Say, you're a rogue with 4 fighter levels and a haste item) you get 3 sneak attacks in the first flurry instead of 2.

Dual wielding is also good in super-high-magic environments where most damage comes from your +10 4D6 Fire 4D6 Cold 4D6 Acid sword rather than strength or feats. More attacks = more ridiculous weapon damage bonuses.

In all other situations it's somewhat inferior. The attack penalty combined with the halved strength bonus on off-hand attacks means the extra attacks don't do nearly as much as you'd expect.

I tend to play mostly melee classes and have probably spent over 5,000 hrs in this game. That said here are a few tips:
(Just bear in mind:I don't min-max because I am a roleplayer first.I have built characters that are splendid in combat and rp both, of course.)
-Expertise is great for a defensive "tank" class of fighter, and if you're going for a two-handed weapon wielder Improved Expertise will help negate the lack of a shield.
-Parrying is mostly useless, especially against AI enemies. I would not put points into that no matter what class I played.

-Take Knockdown, trust me.

-Pick a race that gets "Fighter" as its recommended class:Dwarf or Half-orc.

-Consider multiclassing to a rogue for better dodges, trap awareness, and sneak attacks. Put points in INT so you get skills and will be able to cleverly place traps of your own before combat,especially if you can sneak around a Caster and place traps then get them to chase you...BOOM!

-Heal Skill is your friend, it will help cut down on costs of healing tremendously.

I may edit this but I think you've already gotten some other good answers here.

Technically, Fighter isn't the recommended class for Half Orc. Barbarian is.

Now, that usually doesn't matter much, since half-orcs do make very good fighters, but...

If you multi-class a half-orc to Rogue, you will likely get an Experience Point penalty. 20% if you don't keep the levels equal. And this is a very bad thing. (Well, when playing the OC where there's finite XP to be obtained. On a persistent world it might not matter so much.)

Ah, touche, I never play HORCs and for the most part only play Dwarves or Humans so I simply forgot:)

It's not a dealbreaker even then. A 50/50 Fighter/Rogue level split is completely viable. It's not my preferred distribution, but there's nothing wrong with it. I ran an all-elf party in Temple of Elemental Evil and did this with a Fighter/Barbarian and Fighter/Rogue (Wizard, Sorcerer, and Cleric all stayed single-classed), and although it's a bit annoying you can't tweak the character to taste it's completely functional.

It's not a dealbreaker, but it's not something I'd advice a new player to try, who will have plenty of other things to worry about without having to consider whether he'll be getting experience penalties.

In general though, I agree. The Elf variation you mention is a character I quite like, because of the permanent detect mode.

Or do you mean the Troika Temple of Elemental Evil? I think I had the same character there. Almost the same party, except with a druid instead of a fighter/barbarian.

Honestly in all my time playing nwn I found NWN 1 to lean more in favour of the paladin class then any others. my Rouges, rangers and druids have a hell of a time as well, the warrior class is best for human, but do NOT go with standard choose any of the other advanced options it is a bad build even more so if you click recommended when levelling up, you want to be customising it as you are levelling according to what you find works for your style of game play most.

Somewhat inferior generally. Brutal at low levels. Lots of feats, penalties to hit, and you pretty much need to be dex based, so low damage, and almost all the campaigns are full of enemies immune to sneak attacks (most of the top enemies).

But if playing HotU, you could do some Monk/Fighter/Rogue dual wield cheese and build some crazy overpowered Kamas.

Almost the only situation where the pros outweigh the cons, for me.