Multi/dual-class and other things that don't make sense

Remove all ads!

I have never heard of a good reason as to why certain multi/dual-classed combinations are not allowed. It seems like the decisions are rather arbitrary. For example:

If a cleric/mage is an acceptable combination, why is a druid/mage not allowed?

If a stalker is a cross between a ranger and a thief, why can't you make a ranger/thief?

If mages can multi/dual-class with clerics, fighters and thieves, why can sorcerers not multi/dual class with anyone?

Why are ranger/clerics allowed, when ranger/druid is not, even though that is a more logical combination?

If paladins and barbarians cannot multi/dual class at all, and rangers can only dual class with clerics, what makes fighters so special that they can multi/dual with clerics, druids, thieves, and mages?

Why are you allowed to choose a kit for your first class (when dual-classing) but not your second? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't the class you're stuck with for the rest of your life be the one you get to specialize in?

Why are certain classes not allowed to multi/dual class at all? (Paladins, monks, sorcerers, barbarians and bards)

I understand that most of the "allowable" multi/dual class combinations come from the original four character classes in PnP D&D. Still, that doesn't explain the druid and ranger being allowed to dual class, as they are not among the four original classes (fighter, cleric, mage, thief). Besides that system was archaic by the time AD&D 2nd Edition came out. Rangers and Paladins were no longer considered "sub-classes" of the fighter, druids were not considered a "sub-class" of clerics, bards were no longer considered a "sub-class" of thieves, and illusionists were no longer conisdered a "sub-class" of mages (yes, the illusionist at one time was the only "specialty" mage character, not the eight different ones we see today). Also, with all of the kits that came out, why would they cling to a system developed by the original D&D? There has to be a better explanation out there.

I'm not saying that all multi/dual-classed possibilities should be allowed. It would be silly to make a paladin/barbarian for example. But what is wrong with a paladin/cleric? I think that is a much more realistic combination than some of the allowed ones - like a cleric/thief. (Just think about that for a minute - does a cleric/thief even make any sense? A thief that can't use sharp weapons - I can't see it. You have exactly three weapon choices for the whole game - club, quarterstaff and sling. Can they set spike traps? If they can - and I suspect that the answer is "yes" - why is that legal?)

Oh, and while I'm at it, if a cleric/thief is allowed, why isn't a druid/thief, considering their allowed armor and weapons are much more similar than a cleric/thief?

Just a few more questions of things that don't make sense to me:

If dwarves aren't allowed to be mages, how are there deurgar mages in Irenicus's dungeon?

How are drow mages allowed to cast spells while wearing chain mail? It can't be something with the armor itself, because you can't put that armor on one of your mages and cast spells...

[ July 10, 2003, 19:02: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

a ranger has to be of any good alignment and a druid has to be true neutral. that is why they cannot be in a multiclass character i think.

 

The combination of for example cleric with fighter represents a cleric character that is just more proficient in combat, and so on...

Bard, Paladin, Monk (hate this, it's stupid and not realistic(even for a fantasy setting)) and sorcerer are to concentrated on their own path so that they can't learn other things...

As for the stalker, he's a ranger who's using thief-like abilities, but does rangers work and lives with the ethos, but thief uses them to steal and so.

Well, there certainly are nonsenses. But if you can find a serious enough reason for another combination to exist, you could make your DM to accept (well, in PnP).

And I think some combination were not allowed due to game balance (cleric/thief/mage - he has too many abilities; cleric/mage/fighter is too much as well, imho).

 

I want to know why elves and other races can't dual class. I mean, elves live way longer than humans, but they can't dual to a new class.
I think any race should be able to mulit/dual class when ever they want; that is, if they have the right stats for it.

 

I've always wanted that Ranger/Thief thing!! Man, it would be the best...

 

isn't most of this corrected and summed up in 3ed?

 

@ masterpoet

Yes, but unless there's a mod out there than converts BGII to 3rd ed rules (of course there isn't because he would require re-doing so much of the game) we're stuck with 2nd ed. rules.

I still want to know why there are deugar mages. Also, I forgot about the required alignments with rangers and druids, so that one won't work. Still, I think a paladin/cleric should definitely be allowed (if you play LG), a ranger/theif should definitely be allowed (if you play NG, CG), and if cleric/thieves are legal, then druid/thieves should be legal to (if you are TN). Ditto for druid/mages.

 

http://www.weidu.org/iwg2/index.html

You were saying?

 

3E rules suck

 

Interesting post Aldeth... nice food for thought.

I was wondering about some of the same points that you raised. But my background in AD&D is not PnP nor 3E rules, so my views on the same issues are slightly different.

I came from the good old Gold Box series of games, which also follows 2nd Edition rules. In those games, the multi-classes are just about the same as in BG2... actually a bit worse since the mage class was not offered for Gnomes, and dwarves couldn't be clerics. So I thought it was pretty cool for BG2 to allow this; it expands the usefulness of those races.

But on the other hand, human dual class got worse. In the old games, I had ranger/thief, paladin/mage, ranger/mage in my party. [I don't recall making a paladin/cleric for some reason though. And Paladin/Thief doesn't work since thieves can't be lawful good] This way, every character can cast spells... and I thought pure fighters were pretty useless back then.

So when I first played BG2, I thought the new multi-class options were great... while the human dual class options sucked big time. I wonder why won't they allow the same dual class options as the old games. I miss my paladin/mage

 

Sorcerers, if anyone, should be allowed to dual-class. I mean, sometimes they don't WANT the power...(cough Kelsey cough)

 

Quick reply to the cleric/thief issue...

I recall an exception in the old "Deities and Demigods" book which allowed the cleric to use that particular god's favorite weapon. You could hardly forbid a cleric of Thor to use a hammer, for example. (I couldn't come up with such a famous example for an edged weapon.)

I played a cleric/thief who worshipped the drow god of thieves (and men's lib). Since the god favored thieves and assasins the cleric/thief was logically allowed, even encouraged, to use edged weapons and poisons.

I think many of the silly restrictions were imposed for the sake of game balance, not necessarily logic.

Just think about the paladin/sorceror for example. Ye gods! What would you ever need a party for? Fighter, cleric, and mage abilities rolled into one.

Re: Armor... some of the drow armor is footnoted to be supple enough for mages and thieves to use without penalty, or something like that. Check descriptions, drow armor varies.

 

Paladins and rangers are already considered sort of multi-classed. This way paladin/cleric makes no sense - there is no reason why he should receive more clerical spells for his paladin levels if he already is a cleric. There's also not much of reason why his turn undead ability should stack. There's also no possibility for him to use Holy Swords and if someone insists on Holy Avenger maces and mauls, then why don't give your cleric Bishop's Final Argument +5, +7 to hit/damage vs heretics?

However, I would allow paladin/clerics multi-class in PNP if proper reasons given to the DM. Dual-classed ones are already allowed.

Ranger/cleric combination fits a bit better as rangers maybe cast divine spells but being holy isn't their class feature. What's more, it's not an advantage over paladins - paladins are human and can multi-class as much as human rangers can. Multi-classed cleric/ranger is only available to half-elves, although there is a dual-classed human version which is a good reason to allow paladins do the same also because according to Paladin's Handbook they can.

Now let's approach barbarians. Those guys are technically a fighter kit in BG2, they only appear as a different class on character creation screens. I think this is a good example of their role - deeply specialised and customised fighters of savage tribes. But as the said savage tribes aren't supposed to have vanilla fighters, multiclassing should be a valid option - even if overpowered as compared to fighter multi-class combination: multi-classed fighters and multi-classed non-fighter warriors are allowed exactly the same proficiency levels even though their single classes differ much here.

Paladins are human ergo they don't multi. They dual per Paladin's Handbook. Stat requirements there are morbid and shouldn't be taken seriously by any person in good mental health (IIRC 17-15-15-X-15-17). PH also says wizard isn't allowed due to armour restrictions, about which no one seems to care where fighter/thieves or stalker/clerics are concerned.

According to Bard's Handbook bards can multi and dual more or less freely, that is when they have the stats.

Barbarians... no idea. I suppose there are some optional rules that allow them to dual or multi.

Monks aren't supposed to multi because of their background and specific fighting style. For example fighter/monk makes no sense at all and any other class thrown in either loses the benefits of its own or negates the benefits of monk class in cRPG realia. In PNP clerics can specialise (exactly: specialise, not only become experts or proficient) in unarmed fighting and monk/cleric should be a perfectly valid option in Oriental settings. However, one should remember that D&D monks are Eastern monks. European-style monks, of whom many were/are also ordained priests, are a completely different concept.

Sorcerers are to wizards what barbarians are to fighters. Still, they should be allowed to dual and multi. However, they are pretty unusual in 2E and in BG2 they're taken from 3E core classes (like also barbarian and monk) rather than 2E optional rules. I suppose there is some passage in some 2E book describing how sorcerers dual or multi.

Dual-classed: more or less so, but he's either spent his youth as a fighter or deserted his priestly vocation, both aren't easily omitted in roleplaying.

Multi-classed: in cRPG and powergaming PNP exactly so. In RPG he is both a cleric and a fighter, sharing his time and devotion between the two. Just a cleric with enhanced battlefield competence is a matter of kit, character points or agreement with the DM - for example you get one or more of the following: 1d10 hp/level, specialisation in weapon, 7th and 13th level +1/2 attack, warrior thac0 at the cost of some hindrance, most probably worse access to spells.

A good historical example is that of ancient civilisations where priesthood was in great part hereditary and priests dabbled with politics so much that they went on wars on their own or with (at the head) of country's armies. Examples include Babylon, Egypt, Rome. Also kings in many cultures were and even to this day are considered fighter/clerics of which neither is honorary and the duties of both have to be performed.

Of course. Every race is equally fit to dual-class and multi-class. One could provide lots of historical examples of multi-classed humans.

With dual-classing I would go even further: I would only keep alignment, class race allowance and stat restrictions. Everyone is normally able to resign his carreer and start over and all his abilities don't magically disappear. That class is not exactly what profession is is a different thing and thus performing clerical duties doesn't make you a cleric and studying arcane magic doesn't make you a mage so long as you don't cast spells. Losing all spells after the final quarrel with one's deity doesn't force a fallen priest to seek a new class, he only has to seek a new job. Similarly you may still be a mage even if you last cast anything in your late youth two decades ago.

However, some of those restrictions are related to the fact that the character is supposed to belong to his first class all the time still. A paladin who wants to become a thief or barbarian may always do so, but his first class will now be fallen paladin (and his alignment changed as needed). If he wants to preserve his paladinhood at the last level acquired, he must obey the Code and adhere to the ethos whatever be his next class. And yes, there's no logical reason why he shouldn't be allowed to become a barbarian (if he's not of barbarian origin he doesn't need to receive barbarian disorderliness penalty), troubleshooter (thief class security expert), spy (technically thief class), investigator (private eye, thief class) etc if he doesn't break his strictures. Detecting and disarming traps or hiding in shadows is not an ethos violation in itself. There's also no reason not to allow you to pick whatever lock you are allowed to bash. Sufficient background explanation is always needed in such extreme cases though.

Last but not least rules are hardly ever entirely unconditional. It's actually legitimate for you to have a paladin/wizard multi-classed human in 2E if your DM allows this for any sane reason.

 

Actually, you can. Try it with a cleric/mage or fighter/mage.

I honestly do not agree that barbarians should be able to multi-class. As most of them come from savage tribes, it is unlikely that any of their warriors would have time to pursue a second occupation. Dual-classing may be valid though (but maybe not to barbarian).

According to the BG2 manual, druid/mages are possible, but we all know how accurate that is.

I don't see any reason to forbid sorcerers from dual-classing.

 

I'd like to play a Ranger/thief. Maybe call it a City Ranger? Anyway, I like how 3ed lets you combine any class with any other class at will, minus a few penalties if it isn't a favored class and such, but I also like how 2ed lets certain classes level up quicker, adding some balance to more pwerful classes. Maybe a 2.5ed....That would be a headach...

 

" I like how 3ed lets you combine any class with any other class at will"

That's not exactly true. There are some combinations that can't be done in 3rd edition.

For example, I wanted to create a Fighter/Monk/Barbarian Half-orc but that's not a possibility because Monks are required to be lawful and Barbarians are required to be non-lawful.

 

The restrictions on multi/dual-classing in the 2 ED games are mainly because of game balance reasons.

One possibility escaped game-testing. The ranger/cleric. In the end a mix between cleric and druid, which has access to all druid and cleric spells. And some ranger skills too. That is a heavy-armored cleric casting iron-skins, plagues enemies with insects and draws upon holy might to get into some melee action. That is pure powergaming and the cleric and druid are pretty weak compared.

Allowing some multi/dual-class variations just would screw game-balance and would make a whole lot of the aviable classes old and useless. Powergaming pure.

As the 3 ED has changed the whole ability-gainging tables, it therefore can allow more multiclassing freedom.

 

The available multi-classes in 2ED D&D was always fairly limiting. These have all been implemented in BG, except some of the druid combinations - ie Druid/Mage and Druid/Thief (I presume for programming reasons). Druid/Ranger was never allowed because of the alignment conflicts.

In proper 2ED dual-classing has many more possibilites, where you can be any-class to any-class as long as you meat the proper stat and alignment restrictions. Also, in 2ED dual-classing can have more than 2 classes.

The reason BG is limited on the dual-classing side of things is for programming reasons. The manual states that only allowable multi-calls combinations are catered for.

At least BG hasn't included the racial level limits. Imagine only having an Elf that couldn't get past level 10-14.

I have played NWN and IWD2 as well now. Although I like the new 3ED rules I still keep coming back to BG&BG2.

 

ive read of(in d&d books) several multi and dual classes. For instance a ranger/theif and a ranger/druid and a barbarian/cleric or druid a several others. The only reason i can think of that they(black isle) wouldnt allow some of them is because as someone stated before, too many options. But the one thing i dont understand is why a druid and ranger cant be multi-classed. IIRC Curley greenleaf in the gordthe rouge books was a ranger/druid but druids have to be true nuetral, rangers have to be good. i dont think that they should limit rangers like that because many of them are just protectors of the wild who dont give a crap about human problems. The main one that pisses me off is the fact that u cant dual and or multi a ranger druid, i think it would be alot more fun personally. Oh aldeth the cleric theif would be alright if his/her deity was Mask...Yay i got a new gem!

[ July 25, 2003, 06:06: Message edited by: LoS_DrIzZt4 ]

 

In PnP D&D the DM was god and always had scope to bend the rules if he wanted and if you could give a good reason why it should be that way.

Programmatically, BG can't be that way. It has to work within the bounds of alignment and stat restrictions for classes. I wonder if this is one reason they have made Cleric/Rangers with all druid spells?

Try NWN or IWD2 to see how the 3ed rules have been implemented. It is very cool to run around with a Druid/Ranger or Paladin/Sorcerer.

The restrictions of multi and dual classing is one reason why kits were introduced. Stalker = Ranger/Thief (sort of) and Avenger = Druid/Mage (sort of).