Help me decide on a blitz/flanker fighter, Kensai or f/m? Options

[Mongerman]

I trying to decide between a f/m or kensai for my last character. This character will wait in the background till enemies engage my tanks, then move to lay down the smackdown. Hence, the point is not to get hit, and to do as much dmg as possible.

Should I go for the extra dmg a kensai provides, or a f/m for added survibility and some extra spell casting ability?

Also, does the increase range of 2 handed weapons provide any tactical advantage? Since if not, I rather go for dual wielding for the increased damage

[Raven]

I trying to decide between a f/m or kensai for my last character. This character will wait in the background till enemies engage my tanks, then move to lay down the smackdown. Hence, the point is not to get hit, and to do as much dmg as possible.

Should I go for the extra dmg a kensai provides, or a f/m for added survibility and some extra spell casting ability?

Also, does the increase range of 2 handed weapons provide any tactical advantage? Since if not, I rather go for dual wielding for the increased damage

Looking at your party I would say a f/m would make a far better tank than the berserker or a divine spellcaster (ranger/cleric etc.) basically because he can protect himself far better.

As has been mentioned before, it's hard to protect a Kensai (even if you only try to bring him into the battle once the tanks have engaged the enemy). IA enemies will switch targets especially if they find they are unable to hurt their initial target.

You already have a Vagrant and Berserker. I would suggest a F/M over a third single class fighter-type character.

This post has been edited by Raven: Jan 27 2008, 12:56 PM