I bet all these anti-change morons are Romney supporters ... hahahahahahahahaa
...What are you, twelve? Go back to Reddit.
What are you 17? T'was a joke good sir! I know next to nothing about American politicians, I do however like to call people I disagree with Romney supporters, it's like the new c word.
By OTHER, I mean consistent with core rules. If the top choice is, then I agree with that. It's not a matter of fun/not fun. It's a matter of consistency with the game environment.
If they did Rogue/Mage wrong and you ended up with fighter THACO progression and proficiencies, Monk attacks per round and all spells in the cleric realm, this would be recognized as a bug, not a true application of rules.
But I like my OP class - a constant in the argument not to change it. To them, I say ShadowKeeper away and have fun with all stats = 25, and whatever else you need to do to make the game a mere click-fest where you read the dialogue.
I've less of a problem with giving them the spells that they would get as a ranger (so eventually +3 for each of the first three levels), though I imagine it would not be easy to implement. There would at least then be some kind of justification for it since rangers at that level would be entitled to those spells. There really are no other classes in the game that have this sort of a problem (there is no bard/mage for instance), so its not something that can be discussed easily on a comparable level. Though, with the benefits you get from wisdom along with items its not that difficult to get a high number of level 1- 3 spells as a cleric (I'm keeping this statement vague because I have not play-tested the maximum number of level 1-3 spells you can get as a cleric and at what levels those would be obtained).
I appreciate it wouldn't be so easy, but if people want that things be "fixed" then I'd say it only seems fair, since the people who want to change things are talking about the class not following PnP rules, but have conveniently forgotten that it goes in both directions and they're extolling just as illegal a variant as the ones who want to keep it as is.
Three more slots than anyone else of the levels they're supposed to have (and I would expect a good faith effort made to ensure that only those three slots could be used for Druid spells and couldn't use Cleric only spells), and the class will be as PnP compatible as possible, for presumably a more entertaining game experience for all.
Of course if people were willing to ignore nine spell slots in the name of reducing the class to the state that they'd prefer, then I would argue that it should be equally no problem to ignore nine *spells* and leave the class as it is.
I've less of a problem with giving them the spells that they would get as a ranger (so eventually +3 for each of the first three levels), though I imagine it would not be easy to implement. There would at least then be some kind of justification for it since rangers at that level would be entitled to those spells. There really are no other classes in the game that have this sort of a problem (there is no bard/mage for instance), so its not something that can be discussed easily on a comparable level. Though, with the benefits you get from wisdom along with items its not that difficult to get a high number of level 1- 3 spells as a cleric (I'm keeping this statement vague because I have not play-tested the maximum number of level 1-3 spells you can get as a cleric and at what levels those would be obtained).
I appreciate it wouldn't be so easy, but if people want that things be "fixed" then I'd say it only seems fair, since the people who want to change things are talking about the class not following PnP rules, but have conveniently forgotten that it goes in both directions and they're extolling just as illegal a variant as the ones who want to keep it as is.
Three more slots than anyone else of the levels they're supposed to have (and I would expect a good faith effort made to ensure that only those three slots could be used for Druid spells and couldn't use Cleric only spells), and the class will be as PnP compatible as possible, for presumably a more entertaining game experience for all.
Of course if people were willing to ignore nine spell slots in the name of reducing the class to the state that they'd prefer, then I would argue that it should be equally no problem to ignore nine *spells* and leave the class as it is.
To be honest I'm not sure on what official PnP rules are in regards to rangers gaining extra spells for those levels under the 2nd edition (or I guess 2.5) rulebook. I mostly just wrote what I did to allow for some form of compromise.
If it is the case that rangers should under the rulebook then that should be fixed. I don't see the reasoning behind "well this is broken concerning the rules, so because of this we should not fix something else".
To be honest I'm not sure on what official PnP rules are in regards to rangers gaining extra spells for those levels under the 2nd edition (or I guess 2.5) rulebook. I mostly just wrote what I did to allow for some form of compromise.
If I may ask, if you aren't familiar with the rules, how are you to champion them?
There are perhaps five choices as far as I can see it.
First, one can suggest that a class not following PnP rules exactly be left as it is, effectively trading the spell slots they should receive as a Ranger for expanded sphere access at higher level spells.
Two, one can suggest removing the expanded sphere access, yet neglect to add the slots that a Ranger is entitled, whilst giving expanded sphere access for their cleric spells level 1-3.
Three, one can compromise, similarly to the way Icewind Dale did, and unlock Druid spells as the class levels up. If this is spell levels 1-3 then this is essentially the same as option two, except it gives even less back to the Ranger, and slower, in compensation for their lost spells.
Four, one can compromise and give the Ranger/Cleric an alternative spell list. This isn't too far from PnP, since clerics could follow specific spheres. Strip out "evil" spells such as Slay Living, and spells that interact with the Undead, such as False Dawn, and you're left with around seven fewer spells (including some of the best) and nine fewer spell slots in exchange for druid spells.
Five, one can actually follow the rules, enforce three levels of Ranger spells and handle them distinctly from Cleric spells. If this is possible, then great, if it is not possible, then that's not the end of the world, BG doesn't implement non-weapon proficiencies either.
Personally, I would find #4 most interesting, since if you're playing a Ranger/Cleric, one assumes that you are affiliated with nature, even though it still makes the concession to the game engine that additional ranger spell slots would be either impossible or impractical to implement, leaving them weaker than they should be.
And to rebut those who consider themselves to have some moral (or at least lawful) high ground on the matter, no; 1, 2, 3 or 4 do not follow the rules "better" than one another. Something is either rules legal, or it is not. Removing the compromise in place and leaving the Ranger/Cleric weaker than it should be is not somehow more faithful to the rules than the alternative.
All you have is your personal preference, so please stop pretending that it's anything more than it is, and stop the petty comments that people who enjoy the Ranger/Cleric as is should use save editing or some kind of cheat instead, at least they're following the rules of Baldur's Gate.
My personal preference would be to either give them a separate list of Ranger spells as the ranger levels up or to simply add additional spell slots at the appropriate level and give the R/C access to the druidic spells at levels 1-3 from the beginning. The latter of those options would be easier to implement - it would be like getting the HLAs which add mage spells. Just follow the Ranger class list and add the spell slots at 1, 2 or 3. Give access to the Ranger-available spells but not the 4-7 spells that cannot be cast by either a 40th level Ranger or Cleric.
They dont play as druid / clerics as they dont get shapeshifting or druid HLAs.
Yeah, they do. They get all the casting benefits of Druids with several big drawbacks removed (no huge level 14 XP hump, raise dead, turn undead, no armor restrictions).
Theres a difference between broken and fun. This isnt an MMO that needs to be perfectly balanced, there are lots of completely OP class combinations, and all of them make the game immensely more fun for lots of players.
And I'd largely agree, except the current implementation is against the game's stated rules, class descriptions, and likely developer intent.
Shapeshifting isn't a casting benefit, you've obviously never played a druid before have you? Ranger / Clerics CANNOT shapeshift into fire / earth elementals, sword spiders or werewolfs.
Plenty of things in BG are against the rules of PNP simply to make AD&D2 more fun to play on a PC. Certain races shouldn't be allowed to level up past a certian point in some classses, but you don't see anyone crying to get that implemented.
The original developers of the game never stated that Ranger / Clerics were against their intent for the game, for whatever reason they made it a valid multiclass in BG2. You are also aware that in later editions of D&D, they changed multi passing so that you can take any number of classes that you like in 3-4 different classes?
People wanting to nerf fun things in a single player game in order to ruin it for the people that enjoy it are Osama Bin Laden supporters. Its a game, there are no rules other than play and enjoy.
Regarding rules, even a Cleric / Druid / Ranger / Paladin 4 way multiclass is valid in the current D&D rulesets , and it has been this way since 3.0. Wotc quickly changed the 2nd edition multi and dual class rules, however a lot more combinations end up gimped in later editions because you have a hard cap on maximum level, and every class you take adds towards that cap, plus casters in particular rely on their total caster levels to work.
However thief / mage and fighter / mage combinations were preserved through prestige classes like arcane trickster and eldritch knight, but they ended up being unprefferable to simply playing a straight caster.
People wanting to nerf fun things in a single player game in order to ruin it for the people that enjoy it are Osama Bin Laden supporters. Its a game, there are no rules other than play and enjoy.
This is why I support not fixing the unlimited XP options. Anyone who thinksit might be a good idea to fix something to function as it was originally intended and therefore prevent me from leveling up all 6 party members 15 times talking to the tanner because the designers inadvertently coded the trigger differently than most conversations is Osama Bin Laden...or almost as bad as the SOB #*&$* who fixed the pathfinding bug with Drizzt. There is no other valid opinion.
If you actually clicked on the tanner 15 times to level up, you're doing it wrong. I press CTRL-space to bring up the console and type in the command to give myself however much XP I want, or simply open up shadowkeeper.
The tanner bug fix is completely irrelevant to nerfing an entire multi / dual class option.
@Jaxsbudgie: Grow up. It wasn't a good joke. No one is laughing. Relating a man who's policies you disagree with to "cunt" is extremely offensive.
Seriously, grow up.
@ This thread: The fact a discussion about what should and shouldn't be allowed in a video game that's 14 years old has resulted in ad hominem attacks is pretty sad.
I'm willing to bet the class won't get touched, so at this point I think people who are genuinely offended people disagree with them should just find some other thread to get worked up about.
Shapeshifting isn't a casting benefit, you've obviously never played a druid before have you? Ranger / Clerics CANNOT shapeshift into fire / earth elementals, sword spiders or werewolfs.
@Mungri Huh? I never said anything about shapeshift. (Besides which, If you have access to every high level divine spell, why would you shift into a form that doesn't allow you to cast?)
Plenty of things in BG are against the rules of PNP simply to make AD&D2 more fun to play on a PC. Certain races shouldn't be allowed to level up past a certian point in some classses, but you don't see anyone crying to get that implemented.
I'm not talking about PnP. The class is broken because the implementation contradicts Baldur's Gate's own rules. This was never about PnP rules, but the rules stated by the game itself.
The original developers of the game never stated that Ranger / Clerics were against their intent for the game, for whatever reason they made it a valid multiclass in BG2.
I never said they did. Obviously, the multi is in the game so they intended it to be there. Whether they intended for R/Cs to have access to all divine spells is another matter. I don't think they did, because the game's own materials say that they shouldn't.
@Jaxsbudgie: Grow up. It wasn't a good joke. No one is laughing. Relating a man who's policies you disagree with to "cunt" is extremely offensive.
@sandmanCCL agreed -- but a small defensive of @Jaxsbudgie. If he's from the UK, that word has a VERY different meaning than it does in the US. It's more equivalent of calling someone a spaz or noob (sorta).
Nope, cunt means the same thing in the UK as it does anywhere else, people here just simply swear like 500 times more than people anywhere else in the world do.
No, it doesn't. It's got an entirely different tone in the UK than it does in the US. You can tell this by the casual use the word enjoys in the UK, while in the US it is deeply vulgar are much more rarely employed.
Cunt = vagina in the UK. Swearing is a completely casual thing here, people simply aren't as easily offended by swearing, and it is usually encouraged as a cool thing among friend circles to use swear words. We can also freely use the F word on TV and in the media and no one cares, the only situation where swearing is considered innapropriate is from an employee to a customer, but in all areas of social activity most people simply swear for the fun of it, even kids in schools will be swearing from the day they learn such words and no one other than their parents will care about it at all.
Cunt = vagina in the UK. Swearing is a completely casual thing here, people simply aren't as easily offended by swearing, and it is usually encouraged as a cool thing among friend circles to use swear words.
It is much more highly offensive in the US. It is on the same playing field as using the "N" word here.
I would suggest everyone drop it as a point of discussion. All it is doing is derailing this thread.
Cunt = vagina in the UK. Swearing is a completely casual thing here, people simply aren't as easily offended by swearing, and it is usually encouraged as a cool thing among friend circles to use swear words. We can also freely use the F word on TV and in the media and no one cares, the only situation where swearing is considered innapropriate is from an employee to a customer, but in all areas of social activity most people simply swear for the fun of it, even kids in schools will be swearing from the day they learn such words and no one other than their parents will care about it at all.
I bet all these anti-change morons are Romney supporters ... hahahahahahahahaa
...What are you, twelve? Go back to Reddit.
What are you 17? T'was a joke good sir! I know next to nothing about American politicians, I do however like to call people I disagree with Romney supporters, it's like the new c word.
While I like your playful antagonism, it makes me a bit sad that so many believed Romney to be singularly bad, when in reality, he was quite run of the mill in evilness/ignorance. The part that is sad is that other politicians here in the US deserve the same scorn, yet escape it.
While I like your playful antagonism, it makes me a bit sad that so many believed Romney to be singularly bad, when in reality, he was quite run of the mill in evilness/ignorance. The part that is sad is that other politicians here in the US deserve the same scorn, yet escape it.
My expose to American politicians is very limited. What would Romney be, Lawful Evil Cleric?
BACK TO TEH TOPICZZ I once made Jaheira a Cleric / Ranger, that was fun until all the fun got obliterated as she totally dominated the field.
The biggest thing I hate about online games in general is the absolute ban / outrage to typing any naughty words. Stick the offended people into typical low class council estate life in Britain and Id be surprised if they manage to survive while going around screaming at anyone that swears while calling them immature.
Man, you would pretty much be begging to get your butt kicked.
I see here, it's now in beta section…but what the conclusion ? At one day of the release, I just want to know if I can use the class I like or if I need to pick up another one because of modifications.
Seriously, there might be only one argument that would have me tilt in favour of altering/nerfing the Ranger/Cleric combo with regards to duidic spell access. It is the fact that a dual-classed Ranger->Cleric (provided the dualling happens early enough, say a Ranger1->Cleric) will actually have access to the high-level Druid spells before a plain Druid character would. All because of the Druid's lvl.14 stagnation period.
This cannot be right, in RP terms. I can buy the "fusion" about the ranger's magical connection with nature and the cleric divine spellcasting, but it does not make sense to me that such fusion/cleric-led spellcaster would actually outrun a plain Druid at what he does best, which is his ability to cast spell from the natural sphere.
Is it wrong? yes Is it too powerful? Sure Is it intended? nah
Should it be changed? I don't think so.
@pantalion made a fantastic argument, particularly in disarming the "It's not pnp legit" avenue, so I won't bother rehashing that. I would just like to add that it is one of the little quirks built into the BG metagame, and losing the funky c/r would be losing a hallmark of the original game. I would miss it, and I have never played a c/r.
In terms of raw balance, there are any number of other class combinations that out-power it.
I would note that the c/r doesn't really kill f/c, dual or multi. Multi f/c can roll a dwarf and get the loco shorty saves, or half-orc for the ridiculous stats. Multi C/r is stuck with pretty much the worst race in the game. Dual f/c gets the fixed GM.
As for dual, my first run will be a fighter/druid. I've rolled a berserker up in tutu capable of dualing to druid (hopefully I can drop him into ee), and I will dual him at 13. This gives me grandmastery: scimitar, three pips in two weapon fighting, and full fighter attacks. I'll be a fighter through BG1, where fighters rule, and I'll still be able to hit max druid level under the SoA cap (14) [1.25M xp fighter/1.5M druid] with a bit of room to spare. I won't have to deal with the dead zone until ToB, which is much faster. Is he the most powerful CHARNAME around? nah, but he'll be plenty strong by the end of SoA.
Seriously, there might be only one argument that would have me tilt in favour of altering/nerfing the Ranger/Cleric combo with regards to duidic spell access. It is the fact that a dual-classed Ranger->Cleric (provided the dualling happens early enough, say a Ranger1->Cleric) will actually have access to the high-level Druid spells before a plain Druid character would. All because of the Druid's lvl.14 stagnation period.
This cannot be right, in RP terms. I can buy the "fusion" about the ranger's magical connection with nature and the cleric divine spellcasting, but it does not make sense to me that such fusion/cleric-led spellcaster would actually outrun a plain Druid at what he does best, which is his ability to cast spell from the natural sphere.
Here is how this plays out:
Plain Druid needs: 90K to get 5th level spells 200K to get 6th level spells 1.5M experience to get 7th level spells
Ranger (level 7) / Cleric dual class needs: 289K to get 5th level spells 739K to get 6th level spells 1.4M to get 7th level spells
Ranger / Cleric multiclass needs: 450K to get 5th level spells 1.3 M to get 6th level spells 2.7M experience to get 7th level spells
It is only the 7th level spells where the vanilla druid gets outpaced by the dual-classed cleric. That said, I agree with your point.
Comments
If they did Rogue/Mage wrong and you ended up with fighter THACO progression and proficiencies, Monk attacks per round and all spells in the cleric realm, this would be recognized as a bug, not a true application of rules.
But I like my OP class - a constant in the argument not to change it. To them, I say ShadowKeeper away and have fun with all stats = 25, and whatever else you need to do to make the game a mere click-fest where you read the dialogue.
Three more slots than anyone else of the levels they're supposed to have (and I would expect a good faith effort made to ensure that only those three slots could be used for Druid spells and couldn't use Cleric only spells), and the class will be as PnP compatible as possible, for presumably a more entertaining game experience for all.
Of course if people were willing to ignore nine spell slots in the name of reducing the class to the state that they'd prefer, then I would argue that it should be equally no problem to ignore nine *spells* and leave the class as it is.
If it is the case that rangers should under the rulebook then that should be fixed. I don't see the reasoning behind "well this is broken concerning the rules, so because of this we should not fix something else".
There are perhaps five choices as far as I can see it.
First, one can suggest that a class not following PnP rules exactly be left as it is, effectively trading the spell slots they should receive as a Ranger for expanded sphere access at higher level spells.
Two, one can suggest removing the expanded sphere access, yet neglect to add the slots that a Ranger is entitled, whilst giving expanded sphere access for their cleric spells level 1-3.
Three, one can compromise, similarly to the way Icewind Dale did, and unlock Druid spells as the class levels up.
If this is spell levels 1-3 then this is essentially the same as option two, except it gives even less back to the Ranger, and slower, in compensation for their lost spells.
Four, one can compromise and give the Ranger/Cleric an alternative spell list. This isn't too far from PnP, since clerics could follow specific spheres. Strip out "evil" spells such as Slay Living, and spells that interact with the Undead, such as False Dawn, and you're left with around seven fewer spells (including some of the best) and nine fewer spell slots in exchange for druid spells.
Five, one can actually follow the rules, enforce three levels of Ranger spells and handle them distinctly from Cleric spells. If this is possible, then great, if it is not possible, then that's not the end of the world, BG doesn't implement non-weapon proficiencies either.
Personally, I would find #4 most interesting, since if you're playing a Ranger/Cleric, one assumes that you are affiliated with nature, even though it still makes the concession to the game engine that additional ranger spell slots would be either impossible or impractical to implement, leaving them weaker than they should be.
And to rebut those who consider themselves to have some moral (or at least lawful) high ground on the matter, no; 1, 2, 3 or 4 do not follow the rules "better" than one another. Something is either rules legal, or it is not. Removing the compromise in place and leaving the Ranger/Cleric weaker than it should be is not somehow more faithful to the rules than the alternative.
All you have is your personal preference, so please stop pretending that it's anything more than it is, and stop the petty comments that people who enjoy the Ranger/Cleric as is should use save editing or some kind of cheat instead, at least they're following the rules of Baldur's Gate.
Shapeshifting isn't a casting benefit, you've obviously never played a druid before have you? Ranger / Clerics CANNOT shapeshift into fire / earth elementals, sword spiders or werewolfs.
Plenty of things in BG are against the rules of PNP simply to make AD&D2 more fun to play on a PC. Certain races shouldn't be allowed to level up past a certian point in some classses, but you don't see anyone crying to get that implemented.
The original developers of the game never stated that Ranger / Clerics were against their intent for the game, for whatever reason they made it a valid multiclass in BG2. You are also aware that in later editions of D&D, they changed multi passing so that you can take any number of classes that you like in 3-4 different classes?
Regarding rules, even a Cleric / Druid / Ranger / Paladin 4 way multiclass is valid in the current D&D rulesets , and it has been this way since 3.0. Wotc quickly changed the 2nd edition multi and dual class rules, however a lot more combinations end up gimped in later editions because you have a hard cap on maximum level, and every class you take adds towards that cap, plus casters in particular rely on their total caster levels to work.
However thief / mage and fighter / mage combinations were preserved through prestige classes like arcane trickster and eldritch knight, but they ended up being unprefferable to simply playing a straight caster.
The tanner bug fix is completely irrelevant to nerfing an entire multi / dual class option.
Seriously, grow up.
@ This thread: The fact a discussion about what should and shouldn't be allowed in a video game that's 14 years old has resulted in ad hominem attacks is pretty sad.
I'm willing to bet the class won't get touched, so at this point I think people who are genuinely offended people disagree with them should just find some other thread to get worked up about.
We can also freely use the F word on TV and in the media and no one cares, the only situation where swearing is considered innapropriate is from an employee to a customer, but in all areas of social activity most people simply swear for the fun of it, even kids in schools will be swearing from the day they learn such words and no one other than their parents will care about it at all.
I would suggest everyone drop it as a point of discussion. All it is doing is derailing this thread.
BACK TO TEH TOPICZZ
I once made Jaheira a Cleric / Ranger, that was fun until all the fun got obliterated as she totally dominated the field. This is true to life here:
Man, you would pretty much be begging to get your butt kicked.
I see here, it's now in beta section…but what the conclusion ?
At one day of the release, I just want to know if I can use the class I like or if I need to pick up another one because of modifications.
Seriously, there might be only one argument that would have me tilt in favour of altering/nerfing the Ranger/Cleric combo with regards to duidic spell access. It is the fact that a dual-classed Ranger->Cleric (provided the dualling happens early enough, say a Ranger1->Cleric) will actually have access to the high-level Druid spells before a plain Druid character would. All because of the Druid's lvl.14 stagnation period.
This cannot be right, in RP terms. I can buy the "fusion" about the ranger's magical connection with nature and the cleric divine spellcasting, but it does not make sense to me that such fusion/cleric-led spellcaster would actually outrun a plain Druid at what he does best, which is his ability to cast spell from the natural sphere.
Is it too powerful? Sure
Is it intended? nah
Should it be changed? I don't think so.
@pantalion made a fantastic argument, particularly in disarming the "It's not pnp legit" avenue, so I won't bother rehashing that. I would just like to add that it is one of the little quirks built into the BG metagame, and losing the funky c/r would be losing a hallmark of the original game. I would miss it, and I have never played a c/r.
In terms of raw balance, there are any number of other class combinations that out-power it.
I would note that the c/r doesn't really kill f/c, dual or multi. Multi f/c can roll a dwarf and get the loco shorty saves, or half-orc for the ridiculous stats. Multi C/r is stuck with pretty much the worst race in the game. Dual f/c gets the fixed GM.
As for dual, my first run will be a fighter/druid. I've rolled a berserker up in tutu capable of dualing to druid (hopefully I can drop him into ee), and I will dual him at 13. This gives me grandmastery: scimitar, three pips in two weapon fighting, and full fighter attacks. I'll be a fighter through BG1, where fighters rule, and I'll still be able to hit max druid level under the SoA cap (14) [1.25M xp fighter/1.5M druid] with a bit of room to spare. I won't have to deal with the dead zone until ToB, which is much faster. Is he the most powerful CHARNAME around? nah, but he'll be plenty strong by the end of SoA.
Plain Druid needs:
90K to get 5th level spells
200K to get 6th level spells
1.5M experience to get 7th level spells
Ranger (level 7) / Cleric dual class needs:
289K to get 5th level spells
739K to get 6th level spells
1.4M to get 7th level spells
Ranger / Cleric multiclass needs:
450K to get 5th level spells
1.3 M to get 6th level spells
2.7M experience to get 7th level spells
It is only the 7th level spells where the vanilla druid gets outpaced by the dual-classed cleric. That said, I agree with your point.