Not to speak for him, but I'm pretty sure he understood the question -was pretty straightforward. I'm guessing he was just having a laugh.
Indeed. As an English teacher, it is my duty to pick on everyone's lack of eloquence or grammatical misguidance in a matter similar to my own evaluations, although I must admit I am not accostumed to doing so in a verbal manner...
@Loub, you are not "accostumed"? Does that mean you do not wear costumes while correcting other people's spelling and grammar?
LOL - sorry, I couldn't resist. I laughed at your ironic post, even though it could have been interpreted as rude.
But the trouble with taking it upon oneself to correct spelling or grammar in another's post, is that one then must be perfect oneself, or else clichéd quotes about people living in glass houses, or pots calling kettles black, are likely to arise.
@CrevsDaak, I find your idea about a cleric>mage dual class to be very interesting. I think I might try that, because it mirrors my real-life progression. I started out in life as very religious, and took a very long journey ending with my becoming a hard skeptic, favoring science as the best way to seek truth.
@thespace, if your concern is merely the avatar appearance, I think EE Keeper would be the best way to do that. Otherwise, I agree with what @rrchristensen said.
@BelgarathMTH Ech, the word I was supposed to use was "accustomed", and it was more of a slip of the fingers than a lack of grammatical comprehension. Furthermore, the concept of "perfection" is incredibly convoluted due to the fact that it implies that its object is already complete ("perfectio" literally means "completed" or "completely done" in Latin), which obviously doesn't apply to the ever-changing convention of speech we call "language", unless it is dead, like the aforementioned Latin.
@Flashburn My grandiose vocabulary more likely compensates my own economical dearth and emotional instability than my phallic size, which is none of your business actually, and likely never will be, since you have shown not to be my type. Even though my emotional skyscraper-abyss complex would likely confuse my own mental and bodily functions at some point, I doubt my own self-control would falter and let me fall into your graces.
You can do it. But it is a very poor, idea... First off, you loose the fabulous fighter HP pool up to level 9. Then, you cannot hit max mage level, or 28 mage level (the level in which you get max spell slots), because you won't be able to reach the same fighter levels and surpass it... Like, the worst idea ever, sorry... I feel really sad for those who did that, especially those who kept playing till the end with this messed up character...
To go correctly in creating a fighter mage, you have to start off as a fighter, and: 1) Dual at 8 level to hit max mage... 2) Dual at 9 level to get max hp and more weapon proficiency slots... 3) Dual at 13 level to get second attack and a pretty powerful melee character...
Thank you for taking the time to summarise one trillion posts on the internet since the year 2000: how to dual from a fighter to a mage. Next you'll be telling us that a kensai->mage makes for a powerful CHARNAME. And that one should always consider whether one might eventually hit "max mage level, or 28 mage level (the level in which you get max spell slots)" when starting out in Candlekeep.
Look, mage->fighter is an unusual combination that deserves a discussion. Your dismissal of the class itself, not to mention those who might take the time to play anything else than a point-click-I-win min-maxed fighter->mage, is unwarranted. Do you have any other strongly worded suggestions on how one should or should not enjoy one's umpteenth run through this single-player game?
Me, I'll give this combo a try. Full plate and packing steel, a Wand of Fireballs, a Familiar, and a lvl. 10 Mirror Image cast from a scroll. Can't wait. And then I'll try out a Dwarven Skald or a Gnome Jester.
@Blackraven I see your point. But the cause for my... adversity here stems from a frequent grammar fault which often shows up on these forums. Furthermore, judging by his linguistic fluidity, the OP is either a so called "native speaker" (which does not mean what you think it means, but more on that later) or eloquent enough in the English language to fool my "linguistic metrics". Although I have to agree that my abrasiveness towards these matters sometimes gets annoying.
Oh, I tried not to comment, but here goes. I am an English teacher too. Didactically speaking, ascribing a non-existing grammatical, idiomatic or pronunciation error to a student merely for one's own shits and giggles and without clearly putting the person in question as well as fellow students on notice that a mistake was not in fact made, is cruel, not to mention disruptive of the learning process. So don't.
In other words, the *duel/dual mix-up you refer to did not occur in the original post. You COULD claim you were raising linguistic awareness in a general sense, but you know you weren't. Alright, so you were having a laugh. But don't give the "I am an English teacher so I have to be a prick at others' expense" defense because it demeans you and the entire profession.
@rrchristensen I feel I have to comment that yes, a duel/dual mix-up did occur in the OP, but was edited. Don't make claims when you don't have the facts.
@rrchristensen I feel I have to comment that yes, a duel/dual mix-up did occur in the OP, but was edited. Don't make claims when you don't have the facts.
Precisely, also, in case you didn't notice, my own stern persona is a comedic device as well, one which I frequently use ("it is my duty to make students' lives as miserable as possible", for one). The very tongue-in-cheek nature of my posts is rather obvious when compared to my serious answers in that they are much longer and have no numbers or mechanical explanations assigned to the text.
Now back to the topic - a Caster-first dual-class in powergaming terms is always inferior to that of a non-caster-first due to the fact that mages increase quadratically in power while warriors follow a linear progression - in fact, at higher levels a mage can completely replace a fighter with Planetars, buffs and whatnot, which leads me to conclude that it is a very weak multiclass combination, and that's excluding the fact that they are still bound by the dreaded action economy, which anyone familiar with PnP can attest is the largest hindrance to powergaming - that is, you can either cast or fight, but not do both at the same time - the time you spend fighting could very well be spent doing something more productive such as casting horrid wiltings, preparing triggers and combos (greater malison + doom + chromatic orb x 3 trigger, for instance) which are, in the end of the day, much more effective and safer than doing the seemingly practical hack-and-slashing which becomes worthless once you know the exact mechanics of spellcasting.
I always wondered this about clerics. Could Clerics dual TO fighter or TO ranger?
IIRC it's possible, but you need the stats.
From a RP perspective, this is cool as long as you weave the story in a compelling way. But from the perspective of gaming mechanics, besides the loss of the Con bonus for Con above 16, you also lose access to exceptional strength above 18.
The Mage->Fighter could be a very interesting character concept for an anti-arcane magic party. I can see a mutual respect between on the one hand the Wizard Slayer (edited Valygar? perhaps Yeslick as a WS/Cleric in BG1) whose rigorous training has given him/her unique anti-magic powers at the price of having to relinquish access to many magical items and on the other hand the Mage->Fighter charname who is first and formeost a warrior but has the gift to combat arcane magic using wizard's own tricks against them, with wands, scrolls, items. They would understand they complement each other, and appreciate each other's skills. Add in Jaheira (a druid's aversion could be roleplayed with the argument that the arcane arts are 'unnatural'), Keldorn in BG2 (Ajantis, Keldorn's squire, could be edited into one in BG1), and you already have the contours of a party for both BG1 and SoA/ToB.
@booinyoureyes, I see less benefits for a Cleric->Fighter (or Ranger) than for a Mage->Fighter.
The Mage->Fighter could be a very interesting character concept for an anti-arcane magic party. I can see a mutual respect between on the one hand the Wizard Slayer (edited Valygar? perhaps Yeslick as a WS/Cleric in BG1) whose rigorous training has given him/her unique anti-magic powers at the price of having to relinquish access to many magical items and on the other hand the Mage->Fighter charname who is first and formeost a warrior but has the gift to combat arcane magic using wizard's own tricks against them, with wands, scrolls, items. They would understand they complement each other, and appreciate each other's skills. Add in Jaheira (a druid's aversion could be roleplayed with the argument that the arcane arts are 'unnatural'), Keldorn in BG2 (Ajantis, Keldorn's squire, could be edited into one in BG1), and you already have the contours of a party for both BG1 and SoA/ToB.
@booinyoureyes, I see less benefits for a Cleric->Fighter (or Ranger) than for a Mage->Fighter.
I agree that Yeslick is a potential candidate for Wizard Slayer if it can be RP that he's deeply fearful and mistrusting of magic. In the Player's Handbook, iirc dwarves have a chance to fail at using magical items because they have no aptitude for magic, they distrust it, and prefer technology, engineering and such stuff rather than the arcane arts.
I agree that Yeslick is a potential candidate for Wizard Slayer if it can be RP that he's deeply fearful and mistrusting of magic. In the Player's Handbook, iirc dwarves have a chance to fail at using magical items because they have no aptitude for magic, they distrust it, and prefer technology, engineering and such stuff rather than the arcane arts.
Exactly. The case is not as convincing as Valygar's but with some imagination, I could see Yeslick as one.
That's my point. What I tried to express was that Ajantis' being Keldorn's squire could be a justification for kitting the former into an Inquisitor as well.
I think my role in this forum is just to quote from sourcebooks XD
Anyway, for Yeslick being a Wizardslayer, it might not even need much imagination to pull it off. The Wizardslayer's inability to use magic items is simply an in-game expression of the inability of dwarves to use magical items, carried one step further.
The challenge is to RP dwarves in other fighter classes, since they can use magical items in-game, but I'm willing to close one eye and accept that their fighter training and discipline helps them overcome their racial tendencies, because resourcefulness is part of a fighter's makeup.
@jacobtan, I meant to say that Valygar's ouspoken hatred for the arcane makes the WS kit THE most obvious kit for him, rather than Stalker who even use certain arcane spells (even if they're divinely granted to them). For Yeslick the WS kit is conceivable but so could other kits be, Berserker perhaps, or Alaghor of Clangeddin. I agree with you though that his race helps. The only BG1 NPC I've ever kitted into WS was Kagain, a dwarf...
Valygar has always been an oddity. He's an atheist so having divine abilities is a stretch (this was discussed in another thread). But at the same time, he specifically affirms in dialogues with other NPCs that he's a ranger. A bit of RP justification might be in order in both situations.
Anyway, I vaguely remember alaghor cannot be multiclassed, and they have granted abilities as speciality priests. Got to dig for the references.
EDIT: Memory is failing me. Alaghor can be multiclassed, and they do have some special abiltiies. Will post separately to avoid derailing this thread further.
This sounds like a fun departure from the garden variety dual-class option. I would dual after getting level 2 spells, that way you can have a little more fun with the spells. I also really like @jackjack's idea of dualing a Wild Mage (after getting level 2 spells) so that you can attempt to spellshape some higher level spells.
huh, @Blackraven . I kinda really like that idea for Yeslick. I think I will try it in my upcoming alternate-Canon BG1 NPC Project party (made up entirely of characters you run into during the main storyline and/or have a beef with members of the Iron Throne: Imoen, Xan, Kivan, Branwen and Yeslick)
Thank you for taking the time to summarise one trillion posts on the internet since the year 2000: how to dual from a fighter to a mage. Next you'll be telling us that a kensai->mage makes for a powerful CHARNAME.
And then I'll try out a Dwarven Skald or a Gnome Jester.
No. I never liked kensai to mage. Berserker mage is so much more interesting (especially without item limitations).
About a Dwarven Skald or Gnome Jester, is it a legal combo? Or you need an editor to do?
I'll add that what I posted above about level 2 spells is for just BG1 or BGEE. The down time wouldn't be too bad then. And the spells would be useful and enjoyable.
For BG2, I don't think dualing from Mage to Fighter makes as much sense, though. Because the lower level spells will neither be much help, nor as much fun... I guess one could start out in BG2 and dual right away at Mage 7, but starting as a Fighter level 1 in BG2? That's a bit rough. (Forgive me if you can start at Mage 7/Fighter 8 at the outset and I've forgotten, it's been such a long time since I played BG2.)
I don't think I would want to play such a character for a run through the entire saga.
huh, @Blackraven . I kinda really like that idea for Yeslick. I think I will try it in my upcoming alternate-Canon BG1 NPC Project party (made up entirely of characters you run into during the main storyline and/or have a beef with members of the Iron Throne: Imoen, Xan, Kivan, Branwen and Yeslick)
And I kinda really like your alternate-Canon party idea
Me, I'll give this combo a try. Full plate and packing steel, a Wand of Fireballs, a Familiar, and a lvl. 10 Mirror Image cast from a scroll. Can't wait. And then I'll try out a Dwarven Skald or a Gnome Jester.
I agree, to me a big part of the fun with this game (after all those years) is doing things differently, trying out new things, playing unpopular classes/kits, etc. Greetings from a fellow dwarven Skald roller
I'll add that what I posted above about level 2 spells is for just BG1 or BGEE. The down time wouldn't be too bad then. And the spells would be useful and enjoyable.
For BG2, I don't think dualing from Mage to Fighter makes as much sense, though. Because the lower level spells will neither be much help, nor as much fun... I guess one could start out in BG2 and dual right away at Mage 7, but starting as a Fighter level 1 in BG2? That's a bit rough. (Forgive me if you can start at Mage 7/Fighter 8 at the outset and I've forgotten, it's been such a long time since I played BG2.)
I don't think I would want to play such a character for a run through the entire saga.
@Lemernis Well you'd have to regard and use scrolls as 'expendables' rather than to copy them to your spellbook (or sell them). I think it makes for very interesting gameplay, even in BG2. And definitely more interesting than a plain fighter class.
The idea of M>F is starting to grow on me. You could roleplay that you got put into mage training, due to having a high intellect and being pressured by Gorion, but always really loved swordplay and athletics, and were naturally well-endowed with physical strength and stamina, so you dropped out of the study of magery as soon as you got out into the world and finished grieving for Gorion. Jaheira, Khalid, Minsc or Ajantis could be helping you with martial training every time you make camp.
What you'd wind up with would be a fighter who could use wands and scrolls, throughout the game, which is a pretty big advantage for a fighter.
I'd make the change at mage level two, the minimum. The character would fill the first level spell slots with Identify. That's the only really useful spell, since this character would be wearing armor during combat. Any more magery would be wasted for the character concept.
It's a way to be a sort of bard character who wears armor and is actually a good front-liner.
If your goal is to use higher level magic for your defense, though, and to fight without armor, then M>F doesn't make any sense. You'd be cutting off your magic progression for no good reason, right when you really need it in BG2.
I think the character could potentially solo, but that would be a lot harder than it would be for the more traditional F>M.
BTW, question: Is it possible to cast from an arcane scroll while wearing armor? If not, that weakens the idea considerably. I'm assuming it's possible to fire a wand while wearing armor.
The idea of M>F is starting to grow on me. You could roleplay that you got put into mage training, due to having a high intellect and being pressured by Gorion, but always really loved swordplay and athletics, and were naturally well-endowed with physical strength and stamina, so you dropped out of the study of magery as soon as you got out into the world and finished grieving for Gorion. Jaheira, Khalid, Minsc or Ajantis could be helping you with martial training every time you make camp.
What you'd wind up with would be a fighter who could use wands and scrolls, throughout the game, which is a pretty big advantage for a fighter.
I'd make the change at mage level two, the minimum. The character would fill the first level spell slots with Identify. That's the only really useful spell, since this character would be wearing armor during combat. Any more magery would be wasted for the character concept.
It's a way to be a sort of bard character who wears armor and is actually a good front-liner.
If your goal is to use higher level magic for your defense, though, and to fight without armor, then M>F doesn't make any sense. You'd be cutting off your magic progression for no good reason, right when you really need it in BG2.
I think the character could potentially solo, but that would be a lot harder than it would be for the more traditional F>M.
BTW, question: Is it possible to cast from an arcane scroll while wearing armor? If not, that weakens the idea considerably. I'm assuming it's possible to fire a wand while wearing armor.
Yes you can cast scrolls (and use wands) while wearing armor. It's one the reasons why I think it's a potentially amazing class.
And to expand on the roleplay part, I also think it's an awesome concept (as I said before). One could roleplay that supposedly powerful Gorion's demise against Sarevok the warrior impressed Charname to such an extent that it convinces him/her that arcane magic isn't the way to go.
Interesting concept - just did an experiment in BG2 starting mage - dualing immediately at mage 7 then with some help from Dungeon b gone he was Fighter 7 on arrival at waukeen - shouldn't be difficult to get his mage skills back from there and I think there may be enough useful spells for a level 7 mage that you could go without armor if you chose so you could use your spells - but maybe not.
Comments
LOL - sorry, I couldn't resist. I laughed at your ironic post, even though it could have been interpreted as rude.
But the trouble with taking it upon oneself to correct spelling or grammar in another's post, is that one then must be perfect oneself, or else clichéd quotes about people living in glass houses, or pots calling kettles black, are likely to arise.
@CrevsDaak, I find your idea about a cleric>mage dual class to be very interesting. I think I might try that, because it mirrors my real-life progression. I started out in life as very religious, and took a very long journey ending with my becoming a hard skeptic, favoring science as the best way to seek truth.
@thespace, if your concern is merely the avatar appearance, I think EE Keeper would be the best way to do that. Otherwise, I agree with what @rrchristensen said.
Ech, the word I was supposed to use was "accustomed", and it was more of a slip of the fingers than a lack of grammatical comprehension.
Furthermore, the concept of "perfection" is incredibly convoluted due to the fact that it implies that its object is already complete ("perfectio" literally means "completed" or "completely done" in Latin), which obviously doesn't apply to the ever-changing convention of speech we call "language", unless it is dead, like the aforementioned Latin.
@Flashburn
My grandiose vocabulary more likely compensates my own economical dearth and emotional instability than my phallic size, which is none of your business actually, and likely never will be, since you have shown not to be my type. Even though my emotional skyscraper-abyss complex would likely confuse my own mental and bodily functions at some point, I doubt my own self-control would falter and let me fall into your graces.
Thank you for taking the time to summarise one trillion posts on the internet since the year 2000: how to dual from a fighter to a mage. Next you'll be telling us that a kensai->mage makes for a powerful CHARNAME. And that one should always consider whether one might eventually hit "max mage level, or 28 mage level (the level in which you get max spell slots)" when starting out in Candlekeep.
Look, mage->fighter is an unusual combination that deserves a discussion. Your dismissal of the class itself, not to mention those who might take the time to play anything else than a point-click-I-win min-maxed fighter->mage, is unwarranted. Do you have any other strongly worded suggestions on how one should or should not enjoy one's umpteenth run through this single-player game?
Me, I'll give this combo a try. Full plate and packing steel, a Wand of Fireballs, a Familiar, and a lvl. 10 Mirror Image cast from a scroll. Can't wait. And then I'll try out a Dwarven Skald or a Gnome Jester.
Oh, I tried not to comment, but here goes. I am an English teacher too. Didactically speaking, ascribing a non-existing grammatical, idiomatic or pronunciation error to a student merely for one's own shits and giggles and without clearly putting the person in question as well as fellow students on notice that a mistake was not in fact made, is cruel, not to mention disruptive of the learning process. So don't.
In other words, the *duel/dual mix-up you refer to did not occur in the original post. You COULD claim you were raising linguistic awareness in a general sense, but you know you weren't. Alright, so you were having a laugh. But don't give the "I am an English teacher so I have to be a prick at others' expense" defense because it demeans you and the entire profession.
And that's all I have to say about that.
Now back to the topic - a Caster-first dual-class in powergaming terms is always inferior to that of a non-caster-first due to the fact that mages increase quadratically in power while warriors follow a linear progression - in fact, at higher levels a mage can completely replace a fighter with Planetars, buffs and whatnot, which leads me to conclude that it is a very weak multiclass combination, and that's excluding the fact that they are still bound by the dreaded action economy, which anyone familiar with PnP can attest is the largest hindrance to powergaming - that is, you can either cast or fight, but not do both at the same time - the time you spend fighting could very well be spent doing something more productive such as casting horrid wiltings, preparing triggers and combos (greater malison + doom + chromatic orb x 3 trigger, for instance) which are, in the end of the day, much more effective and safer than doing the seemingly practical hack-and-slashing which becomes worthless once you know the exact mechanics of spellcasting.
Could Clerics dual TO fighter or TO ranger?
From a RP perspective, this is cool as long as you weave the story in a compelling way. But from the perspective of gaming mechanics, besides the loss of the Con bonus for Con above 16, you also lose access to exceptional strength above 18.
@booinyoureyes, I see less benefits for a Cleric->Fighter (or Ranger) than for a Mage->Fighter.
And Keldorn is an inquisitor anyway...
I think my role in this forum is just to quote from sourcebooks XD
Anyway, for Yeslick being a Wizardslayer, it might not even need much imagination to pull it off. The Wizardslayer's inability to use magic items is simply an in-game expression of the inability of dwarves to use magical items, carried one step further.
The challenge is to RP dwarves in other fighter classes, since they can use magical items in-game, but I'm willing to close one eye and accept that their fighter training and discipline helps them overcome their racial tendencies, because resourcefulness is part of a fighter's makeup.
For Yeslick the WS kit is conceivable but so could other kits be, Berserker perhaps, or Alaghor of Clangeddin.
I agree with you though that his race helps. The only BG1 NPC I've ever kitted into WS was Kagain, a dwarf...
Valygar has always been an oddity. He's an atheist so having divine abilities is a stretch (this was discussed in another thread). But at the same time, he specifically affirms in dialogues with other NPCs that he's a ranger. A bit of RP justification might be in order in both situations.
Anyway, I vaguely remember alaghor cannot be multiclassed, and they have granted abilities as speciality priests. Got to dig for the references.
EDIT: Memory is failing me. Alaghor can be multiclassed, and they do have some special abiltiies. Will post separately to avoid derailing this thread further.
About a Dwarven Skald or Gnome Jester, is it a legal combo? Or you need an editor to do?
For BG2, I don't think dualing from Mage to Fighter makes as much sense, though. Because the lower level spells will neither be much help, nor as much fun... I guess one could start out in BG2 and dual right away at Mage 7, but starting as a Fighter level 1 in BG2? That's a bit rough. (Forgive me if you can start at Mage 7/Fighter 8 at the outset and I've forgotten, it's been such a long time since I played BG2.)
I don't think I would want to play such a character for a run through the entire saga.
What you'd wind up with would be a fighter who could use wands and scrolls, throughout the game, which is a pretty big advantage for a fighter.
I'd make the change at mage level two, the minimum. The character would fill the first level spell slots with Identify. That's the only really useful spell, since this character would be wearing armor during combat. Any more magery would be wasted for the character concept.
It's a way to be a sort of bard character who wears armor and is actually a good front-liner.
If your goal is to use higher level magic for your defense, though, and to fight without armor, then M>F doesn't make any sense. You'd be cutting off your magic progression for no good reason, right when you really need it in BG2.
I think the character could potentially solo, but that would be a lot harder than it would be for the more traditional F>M.
BTW, question: Is it possible to cast from an arcane scroll while wearing armor? If not, that weakens the idea considerably. I'm assuming it's possible to fire a wand while wearing armor.
And to expand on the roleplay part, I also think it's an awesome concept (as I said before). One could roleplay that supposedly powerful Gorion's demise against Sarevok the warrior impressed Charname to such an extent that it convinces him/her that arcane magic isn't the way to go.