Skip to content

How about a Bard/Mage Combo?

LookToWindwardLookToWindward Member Posts: 179
in New Players (NO SPOILERS!)
Hi,

How about a Multi Class Bard/Mage Combo? He could literally sing his spells! I've always thought that verbalisation of Spells was more of a Poem or Song than actual language anyway.

Cheers
Dave

Comments

  • MivsanMivsan Member Posts: 139
    Although I'm trying to understand where you're coming from with this, Bards can already cast spells, so I guess the possibility of them singing/chanting/reciting melodically is there.

    Another thing is that Bards are supposed to be the "jack of all trades, master of none". They are kind of a multiclass already, seeing as how they are part thief (pickpocketing and thief thac0), part mage (spells and wands) and part fighter (wide weapon selection, Spins when Blade).
  • LookToWindwardLookToWindward Member Posts: 179
    Maybe, if they "compose" a melody to go with the spell, it improves it or makes it more likely to hit etc.

    We all know that words can be much more powerful with the right tune/rhythm behind them and can convey more emotional response than the bare words.

    Sort of a Write Song Ability instead of Write Magic that gets better as the Bard improves, maybe limit cap the Spell to Mage Spell Level 3 or something.

    So, it doesn't get higher level spells, just lover level ones made better with song.

    Just some incoherent thoughts!






  • SionIVSionIV Member Posts: 2,689
    Makes me think of the warlock in NwN2.
  • SwordsNotWordsSwordsNotWords Member Posts: 147
    So a bard?
  • CorvinoCorvino Member Posts: 2,269
    This is sort of how Bards already work in BG:EE. They get access to mage spells up to level 6 at a slower rate than mages in addition to better HP, to hit rolls and rapid level progression and of course Bard song.
  • dreamriderdreamrider Member Posts: 417
    edited July 2014
    Only the multi-class combos prescribed in the rules are allowed either multi-class creation or later dual classing.

    Bard does not multi/dual class with any other class.

    Barbarians, Monks, Paladins, and Sorcerers also cannot be/become combination classes.

    (There is a popular misconception that Barbarians are a fighter kit; they are not, they are a variant class which presumably derives from fundamental background differences, just like Rangers and Paladins...unless your PnP DM says different .)

    The allowed combos are:
    multi-: (all basic; no kits)
    Cleric-Mage (no pointy weaps, but who cares)
    Cleric-Ranger (no pointy weaps)
    Cleric-Thief (no pointy weaps)
    Fighter-Cleric (no pointy weaps)
    Fighter-Druid (no arrows)
    Fighter-Mage (no armor while casting)
    Fighter-Thief
    Fighter-Mage-Cleric (no pointy weaps)
    Fighter-Mage-Thief (no armor while casting)
    Mage-Thief (no armor while casting)

    dual-:
    Cleric (basic or any kit)>Fighter (basic)* (no pointy weaps)
    Cleric (basic or any kit)>Mage (basic) (no pointy weaps, but who cares)
    Cleric (basic or any kit)>Ranger (basic)* (no pointy weaps)
    Cleric (basic or any kit) >Thief (basic)* (no pointy weaps)
    Druid (basic or any kit) >Fighter (basic)* (no arrows)
    Fighter (basic or any kit) >Cleric (basic) (no pointy weaps)
    Fighter (basic or any kit) >Druid (basic) (no arrows)
    Fighter (basic or any kit) >Mage (basic) (no armor while casting)
    Fighter (basic or any kit) >Thief (basic)
    Mage (basic or any kit) >Cleric (basic) (no pointy weaps, but who cares)
    Mage (basic or any kit) >Fighter (basic)* (no armor while casting)
    Mage (basic or any kit) >Thief (basic)* (no armor while casting)
    Ranger (basic or any kit) > Cleric (basic) (no pointy weaps)
    Thief (basic or any kit) >Cleric (basic) (no pointy weaps)
    Thief (basic or any kit) >Fighter (basic)
    Thief (basic or any kit) >Mage (basic) (no armor while casting)

    (*In general, these are considered sub-optimal dual progressions, because in higher level play additional constitution HP bonuses peter out, and spell selection and # become huge, but, hey, knock yourself out; there may be some kit features that might make a particular offbeat combo worthwhile.)

    (Note: For those warrior/xxx combos where arrows aren't allowed, player should be aware that Str bonuses DO add to the damage of slings, throwing axes, and throwing knives, so there is some balance to the change in firepower. A +2 stone from a +2 sling on a Str 19 Ranger/Cleric is a wonderful thing to behold.)
    Post edited by dreamrider on
  • TJ_HookerTJ_Hooker Member Posts: 2,438
    dreamrider said:

    (There is a popular misconception that Barbarians are a fighter kit; they are not, they are a variant class which presumably derives from fundamental background differences, just like Rangers and Paladins...unless your PnP DM says different .)

    I don't know if anyone actually thinks the barbarian is a fighter kit according to D&D rules. The reason it's sometimes referred to as a fighter kit is because that's how it's actually coded in BG.
  • meaglothmeagloth Member Posts: 3,806
    TJ_Hooker said:

    dreamrider said:

    (There is a popular misconception that Barbarians are a fighter kit; they are not, they are a variant class which presumably derives from fundamental background differences, just like Rangers and Paladins...unless your PnP DM says different .)

    I don't know if anyone actually thinks the barbarian is a fighter kit according to D&D rules. The reason it's sometimes referred to as a fighter kit is because that's how it's actually coded in BG.
    Yeah, *technically* it is actually a fighter kit. But not really.
  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 2,422
    TJ_Hooker said:

    dreamrider said:

    (There is a popular misconception that Barbarians are a fighter kit; they are not, they are a variant class which presumably derives from fundamental background differences, just like Rangers and Paladins...unless your PnP DM says different .)

    I don't know if anyone actually thinks the barbarian is a fighter kit according to D&D rules. The reason it's sometimes referred to as a fighter kit is because that's how it's actually coded in BG.
    Not sure which way you meant that. In 2E PNP it IS a fighter kit. At least as of "The Complete Fighter's Handbook" Barbarian is a kit. Later supplements may have changed that up.
  • TJ_HookerTJ_Hooker Member Posts: 2,438
    atcDave said:

    TJ_Hooker said:

    dreamrider said:

    (There is a popular misconception that Barbarians are a fighter kit; they are not, they are a variant class which presumably derives from fundamental background differences, just like Rangers and Paladins...unless your PnP DM says different .)

    I don't know if anyone actually thinks the barbarian is a fighter kit according to D&D rules. The reason it's sometimes referred to as a fighter kit is because that's how it's actually coded in BG.
    Not sure which way you meant that. In 2E PNP it IS a fighter kit. At least as of "The Complete Fighter's Handbook" Barbarian is a kit. Later supplements may have changed that up.
    Huh, I had no idea (never played any P&P myself). I was mostly just clarifying that the barbarian is treated as a fighter kit in BG despite being presented as its own class in places like the character creation screen.
Sign In or Register to comment.

2025 Overhaul Games, a division of Beamdog. © 2025 Hasbro, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Baldur's Gate, Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Forgotten Realms, Baldur's Gate, Wizards of the Coast and their logos are trademarks of Wizards of the Coast LLC in the U.S.A. and other countries, and are used with permission. Hasbro and its logo are trademarks of Hasbro, Inc. and are used with permission. © 1998 BioWare Corp. All Rights Reserved. BioWare, the BioWare Infinity Engine and the BioWare logo are trademarks of Bioware Corp. Black Isle Studios and the Black Isle Studios logo are trademarks of Interplay Entertainment Corp. Atari and the Atari logo are trademarks owned by Atari Interactive, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.