Yeah, it was an option in P&P... Ah, well. On topic~ Having like...Iron Skins, Stoneskin, Mirror Image, and a bunch of other abilities on yourself while shapeshifted into a Werewolf, surrounded by whatever you can muster up would be hilariously awesome, but other than that, not...sure.
Actually, I just discovered that it should be possible for a half elf to multiclass druid as a Wizard, or even to dual as a Wizard/Druid for a human.
Funny, I thought I knew everything about 2nd edition. That shouldn't be too difficult to implement, I guess, and would be kinda like Wizard/Cleric.
Too bad, it's not possible to dual other specific classes. Sorcerer should really work like Wizard for Multiclassing purpose. (IE .: An elven Sorcerer / Fighter should be possible, or a Human Fighter dualled to sorcerer) Monk, Barbarian should work like Fighter for Multiclassing purpose.
But that would require to define the main stats for these classes...
I'd say something like - CHA for Sorcerer - STR, CON for Barbarian - DEX, WIS for Monks
I'm pretty sure you can dual/multi almost any combo in 2nd edition, but it's partly up to the GM weather to allow it. I believe the core rules are there to set the norm for race/class combinations. Exceptions are made to fit rare situations and character stories. The BG series seems to use a lot of it's own rules as well.
^Except of course the Barbarian is in essence a fighter kit, with actual flavour & crunch that separates from the regular fight, unlike the Berserker. Someone posted a mod to allow Barbarian->any other fighter compatible dual, which was possible because they are implemented as a fight kit in-game.
^Except of course the Barbarian is in essence a fighter kit, with actual flavour & crunch that separates from the regular fight, unlike the Berserker. Someone posted a mod to allow Barbarian->any other fighter compatible dual, which was possible because they are implemented as a fight kit in-game.
Sure, but if we adapt some 3rd edition classes for a 2nd edition game, we also have to adapt the multi and dual class features from 2nd edition to them
That would make sense, and I'm pretty sure could be fun
The problem with dualing or multing barbarians, monks, and sorcerers is those are from 3e, and we're using 2e multi / dualing rules.
Really hate that misinformation only 3rd edition of those classes is sorcerer.
Are you sure? I've heard quite a few places that barbarians, monks and sorcerers weren't in 2E, at least in the core rules. Or do you simply mean that they're not 3E in that they already existed in D&D/AD&D 1E?
I believe they are in the fighters handbook as classes, but are not in the base players manual. Not sure on this point as I don't have the manuals in front of me for 2nd ed.
They are in 1st ed with my point being they didn't first appear in 3rd.
I would also point out the monk is closer to the 1st edition monk rather than the 3rd in the Baldurs Gate ruleset.
Also it is possible with slight modifications to make druid a kit for clerics. Negatives of this would be improper level progression and being classified as a cleric.
The Barbarian in BG is based entirely on the 3rd edition version. The 2nd edition version just has high str (15 instead of 9), con (13), cha (14) minimum requirements and can only specialize (like all fighter kits are supposed to be) and gets the more extreme reactions when meeting new people. (people with positive reactions are more positive, people with negative reactions are more negative). There's no rage or alignment restrictions at all.
The berserker is also RIDICULOUSLY more powerful then it should be, and has literally none of it's downsides aside from the winded thing (there's A LOT more)
But yeah, anything part cleric could be part druid instead if the character is a half-elf, including Ranger/Druids, which are exclusive to half-elf multiclass (There's several rules involved to allow it (Must be neutral good, must follow a good nature deity with both rangers and druid followers (Mielikki in FR fits the bill), must be raised into the tradition from birth), but Forgotten Realms meets all the requirements so it would be allowed).
Theoretically, a human could start as a TN druid, become good (alignments in PnP can shift over time depending on how you play your character) and dual into a ranger, but it's not very efficient of a choice. (the reverse isn't possible since the instant you stop being good, your ranger class loses all abilities and becomes a fighter permanently). Druids aren't restricted like that and are simply required to continue to obey their ethos laws for equipment use (technically a fighter/Druid or ranger/druid is still restricted to weapons and armor usable by druids, or they lose all spell-casting and special abilities, until 24 hours after they've removed the offending equipment...BG doesn't implement that little detail. Also Mutli-class druid are never supposed to be able to go above level 13 in their druid levels, since they lack the dedication (by splitting their time between multiple classes) to be part of the Druid political hierarchy which is required for levels 14-16 (technically, they can't go above 9, but if you aren't using race caps, then 13 is the max level), dual-classed humans are excluded IF Druid is their currently active class (though if they dual-class away from Druid, they lose any of their High/Great/Grand Druid perks and station immediately and can never regain them...though if they've become Hierophant druids, they retain those abilities when they dual away).
As you can see Druids above 13 are confusing as hell in PnP. (there's only a limited number of druids allowed to reach levels 14 and 15, and only 1 druid at a time in the whole world can be 16...though once he gets tired of the job, he can give it up and become a Hierophant Druid and continue to advance, and gains a bunch of ridiculous at-will powers that put BG's druid HLA to shame.
Well the kits are much more powerful than the pnp versions of there is no doubt in this, but kits themselves could be modified at will by dms to suit their play style and in this case they were designed to be appealing to the higher magic level that BG2 brings where as most of the kits you find in the manuals are made for the lower level campaigns which is why many of the kits have barely anything over the base kits if they even have a bonus besides the name of the kit.
Ex. Assassin doesn't have the backstabbing multiplier bonus or the +1 to hit/damage in the manual, but gets disguising and poison benefits as well as forced assassin's guild joining or be assaulted by every assassin in the area. A lot of these benefits don't work in Baldurs gate due to mechanics.
Are you sure? I've heard quite a few places that barbarians, monks and sorcerers weren't in 2E, at least in the core rules. Or do you simply mean that they're not 3E in that they already existed in D&D/AD&D 1E?
Barbarians were in AD&D 1E, along with Cavaliers (who could be Evil) and Thief-Acrobats, but they didn't come by until Unearthed Arcana. ...and Barbarians were all, "Hey, keep that magic away from me, man.", which sucks, because Clerics and Magic-Users are my bffs. Then they got a kit book in 2nd Edition. Cleric and Fighter subclass, and -- *sigh* human only, no evil or Chaotic Neutral? Were they huffing compressed air at this point? Whatever, I'm not going to argue it.
Monks, also in AD&D 1E, ended up...wow, what splatbook was it that they showed up in? I know they got axed for 2nd Edition. Was it one of the Player's Option books?
Sorcerers, totally 3rd Edition, but legit because they gave instructions on making new classes in the Dungeon Master's Guide. Should totally be multi-classable, since somebody here said that they aren't really affected by any one ability score, so why not.
Not entirely true...Baldur's Gate has pretty heavily nerf'd a lot of the high level monsters (Beholders are a joke compared to their PnP versions for instance, not even counting the shield of cheese), and then overpowered the kits, which was complete overkill. Very few if any of the kit changes were made to preserve balance at all, or even ease of use, a lot of them make me wonder if someone just skimmed the rules and implemented what little bit they could remember.
Not entirely true...Baldur's Gate has pretty heavily nerf'd a lot of the high level monsters (Beholders are a joke compared to their PnP versions for instance, not even counting the shield of cheese), and then overpowered the kits, which was complete overkill. Very few if any of the kit changes were made to preserve balance at all, or even ease of use, a lot of them make me wonder if someone just skimmed the rules and implemented what little bit they could remember.
That's not entirely true, because in PnP, beholders can't use both their Antimagic ray and their other rays on a single target at the same time But yeah, they're definately deadly in PnP
It's more that they can fly at will, and would use their rays and central eye in a more intelligent manner (even the weakest ones have 18+ intelligence and would be well versed in Beholder Battle tactics) then currently. (Keep their anti-magic eye on the magic users, while pivoting and splitting their rays to hit any characters not effected by the anti-magic cone, taking care to stay out of melee range, and/or using their telekinesis ray and disintegrate rays to cut chunks of material out of the environment and fling it at adventurers trapped unprotected with non-magical gear in the anti-magic cone, or carving the ceiling over top of the adventurers out so that it collapses on top of them (zapping the ones who dodge out of the way and exit the cone). And having enough attacks per round to do all of this, EVERY ROUND)
Monks, also in AD&D 1E, ended up...wow, what splatbook was it that they showed up in? I know they got axed for 2nd Edition. Was it one of the Player's Option books?
Monks (along with Bards) where in an appendix to the 1st edition AD&D core rulebooks (DMG I think) as an optional class.
They where a little different to BG Monks though. The difference I remember was they ony used d4 hit die, although they got 2 at first level.
Monks, also in AD&D 1E, ended up...wow, what splatbook was it that they showed up in? I know they got axed for 2nd Edition. Was it one of the Player's Option books?
Monks (along with Bards) where in an appendix to the 1st edition AD&D core rulebooks (DMG I think) as an optional class.
They where a little different to BG Monks though. The difference I remember was they ony used d4 hit die, although they got 2 at first level.
Bards where very very very different!
They were in the AD&D1E PHB -- Monks at the very end of the classes, and Bards in the Appendices before Psionics, if I'm not mistaken. I was asking about the 2nd Edition Monks. I know I saw them somewhere...
The BG version doesn't resemble it AT ALL (about as much as the 2nd edition Barbarian resembles the BG one...aka none), aside from using the priest xp table, no armor, and fighting primarily unarmed (no special bonuses at all, aside from being able to GM in martial arts). The BG version is based entirely on the 3rd edition version.
The BG version doesn't resemble it AT ALL (about as much as the 2nd edition Barbarian resembles the BG one...aka none), aside from using the priest xp table, no armor, and fighting primarily unarmed (no special bonuses at all, aside from being able to GM in martial arts). The BG version is based entirely on the 3rd edition version.
Yay! Thank you! I was so hell-bent on finding it, because I saw so many entries for Clergies that included Monks...but I've thrown the thread off the rails enough...
Mages and Shapeshifters. I could get behind that, especially with the ability to bleed contingencies and sequencers. A Mage...hulking out.
Comments
The only dual/multi class option for druids is fighter.
Thumbs up.
On topic~ Having like...Iron Skins, Stoneskin, Mirror Image, and a bunch of other abilities on yourself while shapeshifted into a Werewolf, surrounded by whatever you can muster up would be hilariously awesome, but other than that, not...sure.
I literally want a Mage/Druid multiclass, which is PnP legit.
ah, well i would support it then
even though lvl 14-15 on your druid side would be PAINFUL
Funny, I thought I knew everything about 2nd edition.
That shouldn't be too difficult to implement, I guess, and would be kinda like Wizard/Cleric.
Too bad, it's not possible to dual other specific classes.
Sorcerer should really work like Wizard for Multiclassing purpose. (IE .: An elven Sorcerer / Fighter should be possible, or a Human Fighter dualled to sorcerer)
Monk, Barbarian should work like Fighter for Multiclassing purpose.
But that would require to define the main stats for these classes...
I'd say something like
- CHA for Sorcerer
- STR, CON for Barbarian
- DEX, WIS for Monks
That would make sense, and I'm pretty sure could be fun
And I thought barbarian was only a kit in 2e, not a class. There may be supplements I'm not aware of. Sorry.
They are in 1st ed with my point being they didn't first appear in 3rd.
I would also point out the monk is closer to the 1st edition monk rather than the 3rd in the Baldurs Gate ruleset.
The berserker is also RIDICULOUSLY more powerful then it should be, and has literally none of it's downsides aside from the winded thing (there's A LOT more)
But yeah, anything part cleric could be part druid instead if the character is a half-elf, including Ranger/Druids, which are exclusive to half-elf multiclass (There's several rules involved to allow it (Must be neutral good, must follow a good nature deity with both rangers and druid followers (Mielikki in FR fits the bill), must be raised into the tradition from birth), but Forgotten Realms meets all the requirements so it would be allowed).
Theoretically, a human could start as a TN druid, become good (alignments in PnP can shift over time depending on how you play your character) and dual into a ranger, but it's not very efficient of a choice. (the reverse isn't possible since the instant you stop being good, your ranger class loses all abilities and becomes a fighter permanently). Druids aren't restricted like that and are simply required to continue to obey their ethos laws for equipment use (technically a fighter/Druid or ranger/druid is still restricted to weapons and armor usable by druids, or they lose all spell-casting and special abilities, until 24 hours after they've removed the offending equipment...BG doesn't implement that little detail. Also Mutli-class druid are never supposed to be able to go above level 13 in their druid levels, since they lack the dedication (by splitting their time between multiple classes) to be part of the Druid political hierarchy which is required for levels 14-16 (technically, they can't go above 9, but if you aren't using race caps, then 13 is the max level), dual-classed humans are excluded IF Druid is their currently active class (though if they dual-class away from Druid, they lose any of their High/Great/Grand Druid perks and station immediately and can never regain them...though if they've become Hierophant druids, they retain those abilities when they dual away).
As you can see Druids above 13 are confusing as hell in PnP. (there's only a limited number of druids allowed to reach levels 14 and 15, and only 1 druid at a time in the whole world can be 16...though once he gets tired of the job, he can give it up and become a Hierophant Druid and continue to advance, and gains a bunch of ridiculous at-will powers that put BG's druid HLA to shame.
Ex. Assassin doesn't have the backstabbing multiplier bonus or the +1 to hit/damage in the manual, but gets disguising and poison benefits as well as forced assassin's guild joining or be assaulted by every assassin in the area. A lot of these benefits don't work in Baldurs gate due to mechanics.
Then they got a kit book in 2nd Edition. Cleric and Fighter subclass, and -- *sigh* human only, no evil or Chaotic Neutral? Were they huffing compressed air at this point? Whatever, I'm not going to argue it.
Monks, also in AD&D 1E, ended up...wow, what splatbook was it that they showed up in? I know they got axed for 2nd Edition. Was it one of the Player's Option books?
Sorcerers, totally 3rd Edition, but legit because they gave instructions on making new classes in the Dungeon Master's Guide. Should totally be multi-classable, since somebody here said that they aren't really affected by any one ability score, so why not.
But yeah, they're definately deadly in PnP
They where a little different to BG Monks though. The difference I remember was they ony used d4 hit die, although they got 2 at first level.
Bards where very very very different!
I was asking about the 2nd Edition Monks. I know I saw them somewhere...
The BG version doesn't resemble it AT ALL (about as much as the 2nd edition Barbarian resembles the BG one...aka none), aside from using the priest xp table, no armor, and fighting primarily unarmed (no special bonuses at all, aside from being able to GM in martial arts). The BG version is based entirely on the 3rd edition version.
Mages and Shapeshifters. I could get behind that, especially with the ability to bleed contingencies and sequencers. A Mage...hulking out.