Dual classing - fighter mage
Rich C. Velay
Sunny Leung wrote:
> Is it better to have a 5/9 figher mage or a 7/8 fighter mage? Opinions?
RCV: Well, it depends... are they going to be doing more fighting or
more spell casting? Rich
Leigh Roche
cloak from Highhedge, +1 sheild, +1 ring of pro.
Has prof. of 3 in longsword and 1 in shortsword, so he does ok on his THAC0
(with the longsword anyway).
--
Leigh Roche
(eat...@currantbun.com)
Sunny Leung <su...@fl.net.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.11b40a8ba...@news.syd.fl.net.au...
> Is it better to have a 5/9 figher mage or a 7/8 fighter mage? Opinions?
>
>
> --
> S u n n y L e u n g
> su...@fl.net.au
dave
character is far superior. Once you dual class you can't gain any more exp
in the first class (ever).
At level 9 the mage gains level 5 spells, so it just depends if you want
access to them or not. If not go for the f7/m8 option. The you gain 2
level's worth of fighter hit points (up 28 including con bonus).
Rich C. Velay
dave wrote:
> I was just wondering why everyone wants to dual class, when a single class
> character is far superior. Once you dual class you can't gain any more exp
> in the first class (ever).
RCV: Lets say you want to play a Mage. If you start him as a mage he has
crummy hit points, crummy THAC0 and crummy weapon selection [among other
things] If you start as a fighter and dual, then you get those lovely extra
hit points, plus when you get above ftr lvl as a mage, you get the nice
weapons, the better THACO and you have a better balanced character, who can
still reach maximum level. The better question in this game is, why
*wouldn't* someone dual class? Single class characters are NOT "far superior",
they are, if anything, inferior. In BG, how is a single class mage superior
to a dual class Ftr/Mage? In this game, there is NO benefit to being single
classed [as is always the case in low level games.] The only down side to
dualing is the time it takes, and not that many gamers seem impelled to get
through their games as quickly as possible, after all, what's the point in
THAT? :)
> At level 9 the mage gains level 5 spells, so it just depends if you want
> access to them or not. If not go for the f7/m8 option. The you gain 2
> level's worth of fighter hit points (up 28 including con bonus).
RCV: The question becomes a little more complicated with TotSC in play,
because of the new level cap, but even there, a level or two of fighter would
be a helpful thing, even if that was all you
took...
Rich
Sunny Leung
Colin Elliott
decent
thieving skills then dualling to a fighter.
Yes, I know you have to take off armour to pick locks, pick pockets and
remove
traps but you *can* detect traps armed and armoured to the gills and for
other skills
putting armour down is usually not a problem.
A tank at the front who happens to be able to avoid walking you into traps
is one
hell of an asset.
Colin E
dave <da...@proweb.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3749b...@news.proweb.co.uk...
> I was just wondering why everyone wants to dual class, when a single class
> character is far superior. Once you dual class you can't gain any more exp
> in the first class (ever).
>
> At level 9 the mage gains level 5 spells, so it just depends if you want
> access to them or not. If not go for the f7/m8 option. The you gain 2
> level's worth of fighter hit points (up 28 including con bonus).
>
>
> Sunny Leung <su...@fl.net.au> wrote in message
> news:MPG.11b40a8ba...@news.syd.fl.net.au...
Robert Huston
Sunny Leung <su...@fl.net.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.11b40a8ba...@news.syd.fl.net.au...
> Is it better to have a 5/9 figher mage or a 7/8 fighter mage? Opinions?
>
>
> --
> S u n n y L e u n g
> su...@fl.net.au
My 7/8 Fighter/Conjurer has 91 HP, wearing the Helm of Balduran. You give
up fifth level spells in exchange for a bunch of HP, which to me are much
more important now and in the future in BG2.
Regards,
Bob
dave
and then dual to a mage, you'll never gain any more exp as a fighter (though
the ability to use swords and armour when ever you like is handy).
I think with regard to BG and TOSC it's the level cap that limits your
choices. In the previous TSR games (Eye of the Beholder series,
Menzoberranzan etc...) it was possible to multiclasses a character and reach
the maximum level in each class for the particular game (there was no dual
classing though).
What I want to know, is why can't clerics use swords ? In the Forgotten
Realms there are quite a few religions that allow their followers to use
swords, yet all (if anyone knows differently let me know) Forgotten Realms
games so far limit the cleric to blunt weapons.
Dave.
Rich C. Velay <vel...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:3749C135...@sprint.ca...
>
>
> dave wrote:
>
> > I was just wondering why everyone wants to dual class, when a single
class
> > character is far superior. Once you dual class you can't gain any more
exp
> > in the first class (ever).
>
> RCV: Lets say you want to play a Mage. If you start him as a mage he
has
> crummy hit points, crummy THAC0 and crummy weapon selection [among other
> things] If you start as a fighter and dual, then you get those lovely
extra
> hit points, plus when you get above ftr lvl as a mage, you get the nice
> weapons, the better THACO and you have a better balanced character, who
can
> still reach maximum level. The better question in this game is, why
> *wouldn't* someone dual class? Single class characters are NOT "far
superior",
> they are, if anything, inferior. In BG, how is a single class mage
superior
> to a dual class Ftr/Mage? In this game, there is NO benefit to being
single
> classed [as is always the case in low level games.] The only down side to
> dualing is the time it takes, and not that many gamers seem impelled to
get
> through their games as quickly as possible, after all, what's the point in
> THAT? :)
>
> > At level 9 the mage gains level 5 spells, so it just depends if you want
> > access to them or not. If not go for the f7/m8 option. The you gain 2
> > level's worth of fighter hit points (up 28 including con bonus).
>
Rich C. Velay
dave wrote:
> I can see the merits of dual classing, but if you get a fighter to level 6
> and then dual to a mage, you'll never gain any more exp as a fighter (though
> the ability to use swords and armour when ever you like is handy).
RCV: But the whole point OF dual classing is that you don't WANT to gain any
more levels in your first class! Say you want a great thief, well, start them
as a fighter. They get better hit points, a chance for percentile strength and
[probably] a superior THAC0 for a time. Plus a greater selection of weapons and
specialization!
If you want a great fighter, then play a fighter, but say you want a tough
mage. Again, start them as a fighter and dual them later.
The fact that one can't gain levels in the first class after dualing isn't a
problem, it is a choice...
> I think with regard to BG and TOSC it's the level cap that limits your
> choices. In the previous TSR games (Eye of the Beholder series,
> Menzoberranzan etc...) it was possible to multiclasses a character and reach
> the maximum level in each class for the particular game (there was no dual
> classing though).
RCV: There was dualing in the Gold box series, Pool of Radiance and the
Treasures series.
> What I want to know, is why can't clerics use swords ? In the Forgotten
> Realms there are quite a few religions that allow their followers to use
> swords, yet all (if anyone knows differently let me know) Forgotten Realms
> games so far limit the cleric to blunt weapons.
RCV: Considering that they included specialist mages, it is an odd
decision. perhaps something to do with the coding or something. But it is a
pain, since it prevents me from using Idril, my Half Elven Cl/Rgr who is
specialized in the Bow!... :( Rich
emos
intending to use her primarily as a mage. I dualed her at level 5 to gain
triple proficiency in bow and decreased THAC0. With TOSC I have a level 9
mage who also happens to be a master bowsman! BTW, I confess to using a
character editor to change the avatar and paper doll images of my character
to that of pure mage. For some reason, the game doesn't seem to put a robe
image onto a fighter image (it got annoying after a while having my
character casting spells and wielding a sword in her swimsuit.....maybe I'm
slightly anal!)
Rich C. Velay <vel...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:374AFD04...@sprint.ca...
Rich C. Velay
Niko Wellingk wrote:
> "Rich C. Velay" <vel...@sprint.ca> writes:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > dave wrote:
> >
> > > I can see the merits of dual classing, but if you get a fighter to level 6
> > > and then dual to a mage, you'll never gain any more exp as a fighter (though
> > > the ability to use swords and armour when ever you like is handy).
> >
> > RCV: But the whole point OF dual classing is that you don't WANT to gain any
> > more levels in your first class! Say you want a great thief, well, start them
> > as a fighter. They get better hit points, a chance for percentile strength and
> > [probably] a superior THAC0 for a time. Plus a greater selection of weapons and
> > specialization!
>
> How about this case: We have a fighter who later becomes a mage.
> He advances further as a mage than a fighter, suddenly "remembering"
> how to hit monsters, not to mention use serious weapons.
>
> 1) He runs out of useful spells but for whatever reason he
> isn't allowed to wear armor, if he wants to get any experience
> at all.
>
> The silly rules say that the character won't get any xp
> for an encounter where he used his fighter skills/abilities
> to help him. Also xp for an adventure (doh, here we go again,
> an adventure is a dungeon crawl :-) is halved.
RCV: Well, silly or not, those are the rules. Humans can't be multi-classed,
which is what you are suggesting should be the case. And demi-humans can't dual class
so it seems fair...
> Picture this:
> Cleric: "Please, put on your armor and use your sword
> and go kill those 3 giants in that cave"
> Dual-classed fighter/mage: "Screw you, I wouldn't get
> any experience that way. If you ever want to see me
> get more powerful as a mage, let me use my wimpy sling
> and these robes."
>
> 2) Later he loses his spellbook so he can't memorize spells.
> He turns to his fighter skills until he manages to collect
> spells for his new book. In effect he is a fighter now and
> should gain XP as a fighter.
>
> Now in my opinion he should start gaining xp as a fighter
> again.
RCV: In this case, as I said, the character seems to be operating as a
multi-class, not a dual class. Sheesh there has to be some structure in the game and
there has to be some real differences between the abilities of Humans and non-Humans
too.
> Well, for me the AD&D rules are all optional. Take what
> you need, modify what you don't like and ignore the rest
> when it doesn't make sense. That works quite nicely.
RCV: Sorry, but I disagree completely on this point. The rules for dual classing
and multi-classes are there for a reason, and the differences between demi-humans and
humans are there for reasons of play balance, among other reasons. Why not have your
Ftr/Mage operate sometimes as a Thief too? Isn't it "silly" that he should be limited
in the number of classes he can hold?...
> > If you want a great fighter, then play a fighter, but say you want a tough
> > mage. Again, start them as a fighter and dual them later.
> > The fact that one can't gain levels in the first class after dualing isn't a
> > problem, it is a choice...
>
> Is it? Like I said above, what if something happens that
> forces the new mage to think about his own future.
RCV: If he wants to learn how to deal with situations as a mage, then he does so.
If he falls back on his old class, then he isn't learning anything about being a
mage. A straight, single class mage can't don armor and fight with an ax, simply
because it might be more convenient to do so. If you want to be a multi class
demi-human and play a ftr/MU, then do so, and accept the restrictions that come with
that choice.
> > > What I want to know, is why can't clerics use swords ? In the Forgotten
> > > Realms there are quite a few religions that allow their followers to use
> > > swords, yet all (if anyone knows differently let me know) Forgotten Realms
> > > games so far limit the cleric to blunt weapons.
> >
> > RCV: Considering that they included specialist mages, it is an odd
> > decision. perhaps something to do with the coding or something. But it is a
> > pain, since it prevents me from using Idril, my Half Elven Cl/Rgr who is
> > specialized in the Bow!... :( Rich
>
> I found this to be very annoying, too. I created
> a fighter who dualed to cleric, that's when I found
> out that he can no longer use the bow, but the sword
> was ok. Most annoying. Didn't take me long to delete
> that char :)
RCV: How could he use a sword? That is not allowed for Clerics, and they can't
use a sword in
BG???...
Rich
Rich C. Velay
emos wrote:
> I agree with RCV on this one. I started a game with a fighter fully
> intending to use her primarily as a mage. I dualed her at level 5 to gain
> triple proficiency in bow and decreased THAC0. With TOSC I have a level 9
> mage who also happens to be a master bowsman! BTW, I confess to using a
> character editor to change the avatar and paper doll images of my character
> to that of pure mage. For some reason, the game doesn't seem to put a robe
> image onto a fighter image (it got annoying after a while having my
> character casting spells and wielding a sword in her swimsuit.....maybe I'm
> slightly anal!)
>
RCV: Yeah. If you can change the colors, why not the clothes too? Who
wants guys in shorts all game anyway?
:) Rich
Niko Wellingk
>
>
>
> dave wrote:
>
> > I can see the merits of dual classing, but if you get a fighter to level 6
> > and then dual to a mage, you'll never gain any more exp as a fighter (though
> > the ability to use swords and armour when ever you like is handy).
>
> RCV: But the whole point OF dual classing is that you don't WANT to gain any
> more levels in your first class! Say you want a great thief, well, start them
> as a fighter. They get better hit points, a chance for percentile strength and
> [probably] a superior THAC0 for a time. Plus a greater selection of weapons and
> specialization!
How about this case: We have a fighter who later becomes a mage.
He advances further as a mage than a fighter, suddenly "remembering"
how to hit monsters, not to mention use serious weapons.
1) He runs out of useful spells but for whatever reason he
isn't allowed to wear armor, if he wants to get any experience
at all.
The silly rules say that the character won't get any xp
for an encounter where he used his fighter skills/abilities
to help him. Also xp for an adventure (doh, here we go again,
an adventure is a dungeon crawl :-) is halved.
Picture this:
Cleric: "Please, put on your armor and use your sword
and go kill those 3 giants in that cave"
Dual-classed fighter/mage: "Screw you, I wouldn't get
any experience that way. If you ever want to see me
get more powerful as a mage, let me use my wimpy sling
and these robes."
2) Later he loses his spellbook so he can't memorize spells.
He turns to his fighter skills until he manages to collect
spells for his new book. In effect he is a fighter now and
should gain XP as a fighter.
Now in my opinion he should start gaining xp as a fighter
again.
Well, for me the AD&D rules are all optional. Take what
you need, modify what you don't like and ignore the rest
when it doesn't make sense. That works quite nicely.
> If you want a great fighter, then play a fighter, but say you want a tough
> mage. Again, start them as a fighter and dual them later.
> The fact that one can't gain levels in the first class after dualing isn't a
> problem, it is a choice...
Is it? Like I said above, what if something happens that
forces the new mage to think about his own future.
> > What I want to know, is why can't clerics use swords ? In the Forgotten
> > Realms there are quite a few religions that allow their followers to use
> > swords, yet all (if anyone knows differently let me know) Forgotten Realms
> > games so far limit the cleric to blunt weapons.
>
> RCV: Considering that they included specialist mages, it is an odd
> decision. perhaps something to do with the coding or something. But it is a
> pain, since it prevents me from using Idril, my Half Elven Cl/Rgr who is
> specialized in the Bow!... :( Rich
I found this to be very annoying, too. I created
a fighter who dualed to cleric, that's when I found
out that he can no longer use the bow, but the sword
was ok. Most annoying. Didn't take me long to delete
that char :)
--
Niko Wellingk n...@niksula.hut.fi
Niko Wellingk
This has stopped being about Baldur's Gate. Should have
sent this in email, sorry.
"Rich C. Velay" <vel...@sprint.ca> writes:
> Niko Wellingk wrote:
>
> > Well, for me the AD&D rules are all optional. Take what
> > you need, modify what you don't like and ignore the rest
> > when it doesn't make sense. That works quite nicely.
>
> RCV: Sorry, but I disagree completely on this point. The rules for dual classing
> and multi-classes are there for a reason, and the differences between demi-humans and
> humans are there for reasons of play balance, among other reasons.
Have you actually tried to use other rules than those
in the books? Allowing humans to be multi-classes doesn't
change the balance. Dual-classed characters are more powerful
anyway.
> Why not have your
> Ftr/Mage operate sometimes as a Thief too? Isn't it "silly" that he should be limited
> in the number of classes he can hold?...
Actually, yes. You could start keeping track of how much xp
he has in each class. Now just add thief and start from 0 xp.
As an example he might have 10k xps in both classes and then
start learning to be a thief. 10k/10k/0 xp, easy :-)
Funny, but I never thought about this. Have to start using it,
thanks a lot.
> > > If you want a great fighter, then play a fighter, but say you want a tough
> > > mage. Again, start them as a fighter and dual them later.
> > > The fact that one can't gain levels in the first class after dualing isn't a
> > > problem, it is a choice...
> >
> > Is it? Like I said above, what if something happens that
> > forces the new mage to think about his own future.
>
> RCV: If he wants to learn how to deal with situations as a mage, then he does so.
> If he falls back on his old class, then he isn't learning anything about being a
> mage.
Of course, but then he learns about his old class again.
I don't believe in characters suddenly forgetting how
to use their dagger effectively against monsters
(if we stick to being restricted to a dagger, after
dualing).
> A straight, single class mage can't don armor and fight with an ax, simply
> because it might be more convenient to do so.
But wouldn't it make more sense to actually be of some
use to the party after you've thrown your 2 magic missiles?
"I can't fight because I am a wimpy mage, sorry guys"?
Of course, this is all about surviving, and the rules
don't forbid this, you just get penalized for it.
> If you want to be a multi class
> demi-human and play a ftr/MU, then do so, and accept the restrictions that come with
> that choice.
I don't believe in what Gygax says (change the rules,
and it stops being AD&D). I do what it takes to make
the games have more sense.
--
Niko Wellingk n...@niksula.hut.fi
King of Golf
>He advances further as a mage than a fighter, suddenly "remembering"
>how to hit monsters, not to mention use serious weapons.
>
>1) He runs out of useful spells but for whatever reason he
>isn't allowed to wear armor, if he wants to get any experience
>at all.
>
>The silly rules say that the character won't get any xp
>for an encounter where he used his fighter skills/abilities
>to help him. Also xp for an adventure (doh, here we go again,
>an adventure is a dungeon crawl :-) is halved.
>
>Picture this:
>Cleric: "Please, put on your armor and use your sword
>and go kill those 3 giants in that cave"
>Dual-classed fighter/mage: "Screw you, I wouldn't get
>any experience that way. If you ever want to see me
>get more powerful as a mage, let me use my wimpy sling
>and these robes."
Well, I think the whole point is that he is learning a new profession. And
as such, he needs to be practicing that new profession. He can revert back
in a dire emergency.
Realistically, the part about getting no xp for the adventure is bogus. But
it's done for gameplay balance purposes. Otherwise, if you could swap back
and forth as you suggest, it would be MORE powerful than multi-class,
because you could just effectively have a mage with fighter hitpoints.
Where by following the rules, you have to decide a point at which to stop
being a fighter, using it your way is a LOT easier... simply because you can
do whatever is convienient to your character.
Like I said, realistically, I don't see why the restrictions should be in
place. Then again, theres no realistic reason why a mage can't use a sword
either. It's all done in the name of balance.
>2) Later he loses his spellbook so he can't memorize spells.
>He turns to his fighter skills until he manages to collect
>spells for his new book. In effect he is a fighter now and
>should gain XP as a fighter.
>
>Now in my opinion he should start gaining xp as a fighter
>again.
>
>Well, for me the AD&D rules are all optional. Take what
>you need, modify what you don't like and ignore the rest
>when it doesn't make sense. That works quite nicely.
Gaining xp as a fighter again makes the game easier. You can just swap back
and forth as you please then. But the beauty of it all, is that if you are
the DM, you can change or modify whatever you want. But making the game
realistic disturbs game balance. (We are talking realism with hobgoblins
and spellcasting?)
Robert Huston
emos <emosb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7ifc90$pi6$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net...
> I agree with RCV on this one. I started a game with a fighter fully
> intending to use her primarily as a mage. I dualed her at level 5 to gain
> triple proficiency in bow and decreased THAC0. With TOSC I have a level 9
> mage who also happens to be a master bowsman! BTW, I confess to using a
> character editor to change the avatar and paper doll images of my
character
> to that of pure mage. For some reason, the game doesn't seem to put a
robe
> image onto a fighter image (it got annoying after a while having my
> character casting spells and wielding a sword in her swimsuit.....maybe
I'm
> slightly anal!)
>
If you are inclined toward mages and a power game this is the way to go.
The choice is whether to dual the fighter at level 5, thus assuring level 9
(and level 5 spells in TOSC) or to dual at level 7, gaining substantially
more (up to 28) hit points (wearing the Helm of Balduran my Fighter/Conjurer
has 91 HP) and potentially High Master status in long sword or bow (bow was
an easy choice for me), but limiting yourself to level 4 spells. Further,
you can let Imoen reach level 9 as a thief and then dual her to an
illusionist, leaving the thieving activity to Coran. She finishes TOSC as a
9/6 Thief/Illusionist and limited to level 3 spells, which are more than
adequate to wreak havoc, especially when coupled with the many potent wands
available in the games. If the entire party (rather than just your main PC)
is exported to BG2, she is well on her way to eventually regaining her
thieving skills, which are nearly at max. The only negative is that Coran
has nowhere near Imoen's trap finding and disarming ability and until his
last levelup as a thief in Durlag's tower he can make adventuring very
"exciting" in ways that are not appreciated!
Regards,
Bob
Leigh Roche
or Goddess that your Cleric worshipped your choice of weapon's differed.
Some let you use swords (although I think your choice of swords was limited,
no two hander's etc) some gave less of a choice than you already had. It
just depended on the God. Can't remember what book I had all he stat's in,
I had Dieties and Demigod's so it was probably that one but there was one
brought out after but with a different title that I used to have as well.
--
Leigh Roche
(eat...@currantbun.com)
dave <da...@proweb.co.uk> wrote in message
news:374ae...@news.proweb.co.uk...
>
> What I want to know, is why can't clerics use swords ? In the Forgotten
> Realms there are quite a few religions that allow their followers to use
> swords, yet all (if anyone knows differently let me know) Forgotten Realms
> games so far limit the cleric to blunt weapons.
>
> Dave.
>
>
> Rich C. Velay <vel...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
Leigh Roche
>
> > A straight, single class mage can't don armor and fight with an ax,
simply
> > because it might be more convenient to do so.
Of course not, if he she were to do that they should then earn themselves an
exp. penalisation as they have fallen back into their previous class. Sort
of like a Fallen Ranger.
>
> But wouldn't it make more sense to actually be of some
> use to the party after you've thrown your 2 magic missiles?
> "I can't fight because I am a wimpy mage, sorry guys"?
> Of course, this is all about surviving, and the rules
> don't forbid this, you just get penalized for it.
But basically Mages are not fighter's, ok you have fighter/mage's (I have
one) and using the correct robe's, ring's, maybe a wand and a sword they
should be able to put up a fight, have the cleric standing by though just in
case thing's turn a bit bloody.
>
> > If you want to be a multi class
> > demi-human and play a ftr/MU, then do so, and accept the restrictions
that come with
> > that choice.
Right, if you want to be able to go up in three level's at the same time
without to many restriction's, as suggested above try choosing an elf and
multi-classing in fighter/thief/magic-user that should fill all your needs
and let you use swords for a fight, all you need to get is a good AC and you
can either get the Archmage's robe or when your a high enough level there
are spell's that will do what you want.
--
Leigh Roche
(eat...@currantbun.com)
VBJunkie
"Priest"
Mark Blunden
>How about this case: We have a fighter who later becomes a mage.
>He advances further as a mage than a fighter, suddenly "remembering"
>how to hit monsters, not to mention use serious weapons.
Not quite; I would view it as being that his total experience in his
previous class represents a lot of carefully applied skills and techniques,
which he temporarily sets aside to begin learning his new profession, and
until he becomes sufficiently competent and confident in his new class's
skills, he cannot concentrate on both at once - to do so would be too
confusing in a critical situation, making him incompetent in both classes.
>1) He runs out of useful spells but for whatever reason he
>isn't allowed to wear armor, if he wants to get any experience
>at all.
>
>The silly rules say that the character won't get any xp
>for an encounter where he used his fighter skills/abilities
>to help him. Also xp for an adventure (doh, here we go again,
>an adventure is a dungeon crawl :-) is halved.
That's not so silly. Experience points represent a character's learning of
new skills, abilities and insights in his chosen profession. If your
dual-classed character's (current) chosen profession is that of a mage, then
performing the duties of a fighter will not gain him any insights or skills
as a mage, thus no experience points. You could say "well, why doesn't he
then gain that experience as a fighter?" but this goes against the basic
principle of dual-classing - that humans devote themselves to learning in a
single profession at any one time. He will not increase his skills as a
fighter, simply because he is no longer putting any effort or attention into
developing his fighting skills; his attentions are entirely upon his
progression as a mage.
The above principles also justify halving the XPs for an adventure, since if
a character is not actively using the skills related to his active
profession, then much of the knowledge and insights he gains during his
adventure will be irrelevant to his current class.
--
Mark.
mar...@babylonian.demon.co.uk
To e-mail me, remove the 'spamoff.' from my e-mail address.
* Forget red alert, let's go straight on up to brown alert!
Niko Wellingk
> > > A straight, single class mage can't don armor and fight with an ax,
> simply
> > > because it might be more convenient to do so.
>
> Of course not, if he she were to do that they should then earn themselves an
> exp. penalisation as they have fallen back into their previous class. Sort
> of like a Fallen Ranger.
You are thinking of this from experience points side.
Try thinking of the character as a real person, someone
who wants to survive an encounter. He'll not behave like
a mage when he gets in trouble. He wants to live, there
is no experience in dying (although it might be an
interesting experience in some AD&D world).
> > But wouldn't it make more sense to actually be of some
> > use to the party after you've thrown your 2 magic missiles?
> > "I can't fight because I am a wimpy mage, sorry guys"?
> > Of course, this is all about surviving, and the rules
> > don't forbid this, you just get penalized for it.
>
> But basically Mages are not fighter's, ok you have fighter/mage's (I have
I am aware of multi-classes. That is why I cannot see
the point of penalizing the ex-fighter for using his
skills when they would be better in some situation.
> one) and using the correct robe's, ring's, maybe a wand and a sword they
> should be able to put up a fight, have the cleric standing by though just in
> case thing's turn a bit bloody.
> >
> > > If you want to be a multi class
> > > demi-human and play a ftr/MU, then do so, and accept the restrictions
> that come with
> > > that choice.
>
> Right, if you want to be able to go up in three level's at the same time
> without to many restriction's, as suggested above try choosing an elf and
> multi-classing in fighter/thief/magic-user that should fill all your needs
Nah, I'll pick a human and multi-class him. If anyone thinks
I am not playing AD&D, well, it is my interpretion of the rules.
After all, someone might say that anyone who uses 2nd edition
rules is using the wrong rules and the 1st edition is the
correct one.
Everything is just a matter of taste. I change what
I don't like, try to make it more sensible.
> and let you use swords for a fight, all you need to get is a good AC and you
> can either get the Archmage's robe or when your a high enough level there
> are spell's that will do what you want.
I am no longer talking about Baldur's Gate, sorry about
that. Should have made it clear in beginning of this
thread.
--
Niko Wellingk n...@niksula.hut.fi
Niko Wellingk
>
> Niko Wellingk wrote in message ...
> >How about this case: We have a fighter who later becomes a mage.
> >He advances further as a mage than a fighter, suddenly "remembering"
> >how to hit monsters, not to mention use serious weapons.
>
> Not quite; I would view it as being that his total experience in his
> previous class represents a lot of carefully applied skills and techniques,
> which he temporarily sets aside to begin learning his new profession, and
> until he becomes sufficiently competent and confident in his new class's
> skills, he cannot concentrate on both at once - to do so would be too
> confusing in a critical situation, making him incompetent in both classes.
That doesn't make sense. Let's assume he gets into
a melee situation. Wouldn't it benefit him more to
use what he learned as a warrior? To me it would seem
to be that way. A warrior who isn't familiar with some
weapon can still use it and be deadly, he only gets -2
to his THAC0 with it. Would your ex-7th level fighter,
now 1st level mage, use that dagger with a THAC0 of
14 (or in case he isn't proficient with it, 16), or
20? I don't see how it will improve him as a mage if
he keeps inadequately sticking something with the
dagger.
> >1) He runs out of useful spells but for whatever reason he
> >isn't allowed to wear armor, if he wants to get any experience
> >at all.
> >
> >The silly rules say that the character won't get any xp
> >for an encounter where he used his fighter skills/abilities
> >to help him. Also xp for an adventure (doh, here we go again,
> >an adventure is a dungeon crawl :-) is halved.
>
> That's not so silly. Experience points represent a character's learning of
> new skills, abilities and insights in his chosen profession. If your
> dual-classed character's (current) chosen profession is that of a mage, then
> performing the duties of a fighter will not gain him any insights or skills
> as a mage, thus no experience points.
Anyone can vouch that you can get educated in multiple
fields. You can start new fields without forgetting
the old ones :-)
> You could say "well, why doesn't he
> then gain that experience as a fighter?" but this goes against the basic
> principle of dual-classing - that humans devote themselves to learning in a
> single profession at any one time.
Actually, this is part of the rules I don't really
understand. Humans live a short time, it would make
perfect sense for them to try to do multiple things
at the same time. Whereas elves, for example, would
have time to do many things during their lifetime.
Get rid of dual-classing, only allow single classes
or multi-classes, even for humans. Allow adding classes
to single class (or multi-class) as long as it is
legal by the rules. I've found that to work pretty
well.
> He will not increase his skills as a
> fighter, simply because he is no longer putting any effort or attention into
> developing his fighting skills; his attentions are entirely upon his
> progression as a mage.
But why couldn't he do both of them at the same time?
After all, we already have multi-classes who advance
at the same rate. They both gain xxxx xp in the same time
in the same party.
What I am trying to say is that I really really really
hate the dual-classing rules. If you think humans are
the weakest race and this balances things, try giving
them some bonuses, like reaction adjustment bonuses,
skill bonuses, stuff like that.
> The above principles also justify halving the XPs for an adventure, since if
> a character is not actively using the skills related to his active
> profession, then much of the knowledge and insights he gains during his
> adventure will be irrelevant to his current class.
>
--
Niko Wellingk n...@niksula.hut.fi
LocutusX
Niko Wellingk <n...@niksula.hut.fi> wrote in message
news:s89wvxp...@beautiful.cs.hut.fi...
> "Mark Blunden" <mar...@spamoff.babylonian.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> >
> > Niko Wellingk wrote in message ...
> > >How about this case: We have a fighter who later becomes a mage.
> > >He advances further as a mage than a fighter, suddenly "remembering"
> > >how to hit monsters, not to mention use serious weapons.
> >
> > Not quite; I would view it as being that his total experience in his
> > previous class represents a lot of carefully applied skills and
techniques,
> > which he temporarily sets aside to begin learning his new profession,
and
> > until he becomes sufficiently competent and confident in his new class's
> > skills, he cannot concentrate on both at once - to do so would be too
> > confusing in a critical situation, making him incompetent in both
classes.
>
> That doesn't make sense. Let's assume he gets into
> a melee situation. Wouldn't it benefit him more to
> use what he learned as a warrior? To me it
YES, he *CAN* do that -- in PnP! In the Player's Handbook it actually states
that, if he really wants to (i.e. live or death situation) he can use his
"old skills". But doing so, he will not gain any experience in that battle
and only half for the entire adventure.
Doesn't that make sense? Mr. MageFighter is trying to concentrate on
learning the arts of the magi... but in a surprise attack by a bunch of,
ummm, vampiric wolves (hehehe) he realizes that unless he picks up his
Claymore and swings it like the old days, his girlfriend is toast. So he
does that, but that doesn't help him achieve his main goal, which is trying
to learn more about magi, and who knows maybe that instance he used the
sword, he began to have conflicting thoughts in his mind on where his future
was going, which explains losing 1/2 xp for the adventure.
Of course, BG is a computer rendition of AD&D, and I wouldn't expect them to
include all that. Computers are stupid machines and they can't make
decisions like that. I wouldn't expect game programmers to be master AI
architects as well, so that's how I'd expect things to be.
Mark Blunden
Thanks, that saves me replying - you've neatly summed up the point I was
trying to make. :)
--
Mark.
mar...@babylonian.demon.co.uk
To e-mail me, remove the 'spamoff.' from my e-mail address.
* That power would set me up above the gods!
dave
contains kits for Clerics/Priests which allow various armour/weapon
combinations.
VBJunkie <vbju...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990528003338...@ng-fy1.aol.com...
dave
info on which armour/weapon combos different priests are allowed, and which
sphere of influence their spells come from (and includes details of
specialty priests).
Dave
Leigh Roche <eat...@currantbun.com> wrote in message
news:374eeeac.0@news1...
Rich C. Velay
>
> A cleric and a priest are one and the same. The Complete Priests Handbook
> contains kits for Clerics/Priests which allow various armour/weapon
> combinations.
>
RCV: Not exactly, Priest is the name of the group, a Cleric is a type
of Priest, just as a Druid, while not a Cleric, is a type of Priest.
Just like Thieves and Bards are both Rogues, and Fighters, Paladins and
Rangers are all Warriors... 2nd edition... Rich