Can't Play a Tri-Class

Remove all ads!

I've tried and tried, but I always give up on the three class multi-class. I can understand some of their appeal if you're soloing the game - maximizing the utility of a single character when you're the ONLY character certainly makes sense - but I don't do that, and as such, they level way too slowly, and I usually give up on them. The problem of course, is that both possible combinations of three classes involve a mage - i.e., either a F/M/T, or a F/M/C.

The best part about the mage is their level 9 spells, and if you are playing a three class multi-class, you need to earn about 9 million XP in order to get 9th level spells. That means you can't even get 9th level spells in the unmodified game, as the XP limit is 8 million. So you need an XP disabler to even get the possibility of acquiring 9th level spells. Furthermore, there is no possible way for you to reach anywhere near 9 million XPs in the game unless you are playing with a relatively small party. I'd guess you'd have a maximum party of no more than 3 members (including the PC) to get to the 9 million XP mark, and even then you'd only get to 9 million XP in very late ToB. So soloing is almost mandatory.

The other problem I have is that the only three class multi-class that I think shows both appeal and promise, does not even exist in the game. I like the idea of a F/T/C. Fighters stop getting better for all practical purposes by the time they hit level 20. Thieves stop getting better once you max your backstab at level 15 (which is also usually when they have most of their thieving skills maxed out). Clerics are more utility characters than anything, and there isn't a need to have gobs and gobs of high level spells. For practical purposes, as soon as you can cast level 4 spells, you have all that you need. I'm not saying there are no good cleric spells for levels 5-7, but they aren't necessary, basic party maintenance spells.

I guess my other gripe is that there is no good reason why a F/T/C multi-class should not exist. Both gnomes and half-orcs can be F/T, C/T, and F/C, so it doesn't really makes sense that they can't be F/C/T.

So is there anyone out there that actually plays a three-class multi-class with a party, and if so, how do you not get immensely frustrated that your PCs skill lag so far behind other party members?

 

Aldeth, your gripes are the main reason why I prefer to play IWD2 and NWN over BGII. Those limitations on character generation are very annoying, once you've played with the freedom of those other games.

But as for the three class multi-classes in BGII, my main reason for playing them would be for roleplay reasons or as a complement to the rest of my party. A F/M/T fits in well with an evil party of Korgan, Edwin, and Viconia.

 

I wouldn't dream of playing a triple-class with a party unless it was absolutely necessary. For that matter, there's really no reason at all to play a F/M/T with a party since he's practically designed to be self-sufficient. The only one I would contemplate would be an F/M/C, and that only in stretched circumstances. (I was considering it for my MEH party, but the F/D path panned out first.)

I don't think an F/C/T is necessary, since I've played with Tiax (plain C/T) and he was tanking almost better than Kagain. Try it out sometime.

What I'd really like to see is a C/M/T. Ultimate utility character, but needs someone else to tank for him.

 

Yeah, but you could afford to leave out the M. Edwin is all the M you'll ever need

edit: This post would make slightly more sense if Fellinoid didn't have this odd habit of posting while I'm typing

 

As you said yourself, tri-lists(tm) are just as good as useless in a party. a stealthy tri-list - the shadow-weaver (or an F/M/T) is build for solo. The Divine/Arcane tri-list (F/M/C) is totally useless i my eyes, seeing as it would be too slow advancing, thus often too weak, in party combo's, and utterly useless compared to an F/M/T in solo... they are just not worth your while.

 

I think that maybe some of you are missing the point.

These options are available to add variety and role-playing possibilities to your game. If you have a character idea who is a bit of everything then you want to be able to reflect that in the game. When I made my FitzChivalry character, I decided that he had to be a F/M/T because those were the sorts of skills that he had. It doesn't matter if he was 'as good as useless' in a party because that would have been half the fun and challenge. I played my Fitz F/M/T with only Viconia as his other main party member so between them they had all the major classes covered.

 

I think F/T/C isn't in there because you'd be trying to backstab with maces and flails, and those really aren't backstabb weapons. Of course that's only part of the reason it's not included, but I think it's a pretty good one.

 

@omnigodly:
Backsmacking with clubs and staves; that's what the C/T is all about. The F/C/T could be the same way. It's still an odd combination, though; normally a C/T of [some god of thievery or mischief] would be allowed to use [at least daggers] by his deity in PnP.
.
.
.
Do I smell a kit mod?

 

If someone hasn't already done so, I think a F/C/T would be a very fun/interesting class, as I've often wondered why they didn't make that triple class... then you could spellcast, backstab, and wear some good studded leather armor while doing so

 

Here's something weirdly to pop into my brain. The original bard was a fighter for so many levels, a thief for so many levels, went under the training of a druid (originally a sub-class of priests), then actually got some bardic training from a school (iirc from 1E). So, theoretically, a bard was a F/T/C.

 

I think the modern bard is nicely different from a F / M / C because of the Bard Song, which I believe should be the main thing about a Bard. A bard should be all about inspiration and knowledge. I think if you specifically want a jack of all trades then you should have a triple class instead of a Bard.

 

The BG series' armor restriction on spellcasting, as well as the way it doesn't let you quick-swap 2-handed weapons (bows, etc.) with dual-wielding or shields are also annoyances that make the triple classes less fun to play. They're really there for two reasons, soloing (or small parties) and to remain (mostly) canonical to 2e. Other than that whole sorcerer/barbarian/kits thing.

 

The first time I beat the Baldur's Gate series was with a F/M/C, played from Candlekeep to the end of ToB. I played him as a Tank, and always with a better Mage (Imoen in BG2) and Cleric-type (Yeslick in BG1, Jaheira in BG2).

He was an awesome character, and really could do it all. I played with a full party for just about the entire game, and without cheating or mods (other than fiddling with SK so that I could do all three strongholds), I ended up maxing this guy's XP.

Aldeth said:

This is my main gripe with your post. I think Fighters get the best HLAs, and actually keep on getting better all the way 'til the end. After taking the bonus spells, the Cleric and Mage HLAs stunk for my character, and I ended up taking as many GWW's as I could.

 

If you use the F/M/T as a buffing caster he is extremely effective, even in a party. A good constitution and a familiar will get him past his hit point deficiency. An improved hasted, dual wielding F/M/T with stoneskin is a force to be reckoned with.

 

I absolutely agree. The fighter HLAs are among the best in the game (although I still think you get the best of everything if you play a fighter/thief multi-class - assassination is just a sick skill for a F/T). My point was that in terms of THAC0, damage, etc., a fighter stops getting better once he hits level 20. If I played a tri-class, I'd STILL get HLAs once I gained 3 million XP, just like everyone else. So I'd still get my GWWs.

The main point of my post was that the mage part of the tri-class would be weak, and thus, I'd need another mage anyway, which raises the question of if I even needed the PC to be part mage in the first place. I guess my main problem is I look at F/M/T, and F/M/C, and in every instance, I'd rather have a F/M, F/T, F/C, M/T or M/C. (Although I must admit that M/C I don't play that often, as if I really want one, Aerie is available.)

[ January 05, 2006, 16:48: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Why not take a tri-class? You don't lose anything by taking a tri-class. (Believe me. You won't have any difficulty hitting anything, even if the Thac0 is a couple points low.) On the other hand you get access to all the mage spells up to level 8. If you concentrate on buffing spells and "can opener" spells you are going to have a character who is never in a situation he can't handle. I'll trade some HP and a few Thac0 points for that.

 

Heh, like Elan, right? *sings* "jump, jump, jump, jump over the chasm..."

 

Who is Elan?

 

That is Elan

 

The Order of the Stick, HB, a DnD themed web comic. Highly recommended.