Coelocanth: This would fit right in with the great advice given earlier in the thread (i.e. using ranged weapons, at least at the beginning). I'd suggest a Fighter with pips in ranged weapons and a melee weapon. This will be a hardier character in the beginning than a spell caster due to more HPs and will allow you a much better survival chance. If you want, you can go with a Human character and after level 3 or so, when you have a good pool of hit points, you could dual class to a mage (only humans can dual class).

Be aware though that you lose all your Fighter abilities until your mage level surpasses your Fighter level (so if you dual class when your character reaches level 3 Fighter, you won't have your Fighter abilities restored until you hit mage level 4). This can be a decent option though if you really want to play a caster but have trouble surviving at lower levels.

You need to set your character up properly for this to be possible though. To dual class, you must have a score of at least 15 in the primary stat of your base class and 17 in your intended second class. In the case of the FTR/Mage, that means at least 15 in STR and 17 INT for the character.

Once you gain back your Fighter abilities, keep in mind you still can't cast spells while wearing armor, but you'll get your weapon proficiencies back and you can make a pretty effective self-buffing melee character or a decent spell-chucking archer, whichever strikes your fancy. It's a fun way to go.

Hickory: If you want to play a damaging (fighter/ranger) style archer, you absolutely must go as an Elf (not half-elf). Elves get a natural THAC0 bonus to bows and large swords, and they also get a +1 bonus to DEX (essential for archers). The very best option for a ranged fighter is an Elf Ranger (Bonus THAC0 bows, natural 19 DEX possible, support spells, favoured enemies etc.). Remember that Strength is only essential for melee fighting (THAC0) and carry weight, so concentrate on that DEX. Also be aware that Elves get a -1 penalty to CON, but since you won't be going toe-to-toe that often, that's not a problem.

AlKim: So there are no bows that benefit from a high STR score? I haven't played Baldur's Gate in two years and cannot remember which edition introduced such weapons.

AvatarOfLight: This shouldn't concern you too much now, but if you decide to play Baldur's Gate 2 (which you should, it is extremely awesome) and import your Baldur's Gate 1 character, you will get to pick a Class Kit (acquiring some bonuses and penalties, further specializing your character). Ranger's have the Archer Kit, making them the best archer in the long run. All the fighter kits are melee oriented. Kit info: http://www.gamebanshee.com/baldursgateii/classes/archer.php

SkeleTony: A Fighter-Magic user will have poor armor and this will make the early game harder up until you get higher mage levels and spells but being able to use any weapon that fighters can use, the AC and missile bonus from having 19 Dex , etc. will counterbalance the armor restrictions if you play smart and this character will become as powerful as you can imagine in BG2.

Lasivern: Just as an aside here, the First lvl Mage spell Armor will give a base AC of 6, with a Dex of 18 or 19, that's a base AC of 2. For a more "prepared" combat situation, the First lvl Mage spell Shield will give a base AC of 4 [2 vs missiles] - with the same 18 or 19 Dex, that's a base AC of 0 [-2 vs missiles].

A single class Fighter would have to be in Plate, w/a shield to equal the F/MU with Armor, and the single class Fighter would need a Dex of 16 or better to equal the F/MU using Shield....

So to rephrase your statement, a teensy bit, a F/MU will have poor armor *IF* they don't bother to use their MU side's abilities to improve their AC. :)

Later of course, the F/MU has access to, among other goodies, Blur, Mirror Image and Ghost Armor - making them quite superior to the single class Fighter in terms of base AC and hit probability....

SkeleTony: ...and REALLY hate the nonsensical way dual classing and multi-classing works in (A)D&D (3rd/3.5 ed was a dramatic improvement but it is still a wonky system overall.).

Hickory: I too prefer 2nd Ed, though there are many aspects I don't like, and many in 3rd Ed I do. One of my biggest beefs in 2nd Ed is the absolutely absurd notion that a Cleric (or any Cleric sub-class) can only use blunt weapons. Imagine a Ranger, widely accepted as masters of sword and bow, multi-classed as a C/R and simply because of this he/she cannot use a sword or bow any longer! It's madness. Even a pure Cleric has no reason to be restricted in that way -- a priest can't wield a dagger? Please! There are other examples, but that has to be close to the top of my list of 'what were they thinking!'

Jonesy89: I think someone mentioned the inspiration behind the whole "blunt weapons/weapons that don't draw blood" thing here. Mind, the rationale definitely has holes in it to the point that it's ripe for satire ("Oh Thor, lend me thy strength to do thy will in this battle without breaking my vow to not shed blood... instead, let's break this heathen's legs!").