OT I love that everyone just accepts druids using scimitars. The actual rule is they can use scythes and sickles, because those are farming implements, and farming is natural, and druids like nature, amirite?
Then Bioware said "well a scimitar is *like* a sickle, because it starts with 'S' and it's curvy! (But not katanas, no, they're not nearly curvy enough. The difference in the curvature of a scimitar vs. a katana, is *precisely* where you find the boundary of what a druid can and can't equip.)"
It's so, so dumb, it hurts my brain every time I see it.
/rant
I don't think it was Bioware that made that choice. If I remember correctly, WAY back in PnP 2E, Druids could use scimitars. I think if you are going to point your finger at anyone, it pretty much has to be WoTC of that time era, or Gary and Frank themselves..
Yeah, it's been established that Gygax himself made the decision. Doesn't make it any more sensible... (Frankly I have nothing in principle against druids using scimitars. I just don't understand how you can then draw a line and say they can't also use - can't even equip! - short swords and longswords, as if straightening out the blade changes anything.)
Thankfully I can mod this stuff myself! Bows and flails are in, scimitars are out. Done.
I've never understood many of the D&D rules. Some combos make absolutely no sense to me while others that do make sense you can't. Classes that use the same skill sets you'd think would make sense to be able to combine. I don't object to pallys staying pallys(i love pallys) But to me a bard/druid combo makes perfect sense, especially role-playing as a harper let's say. They both use char as far as i know and would give you a potent combo of mage/cleric and bard songs. WOW! too overpowered maybe? Is that why it can't be combined??. Kind of annoying as I tried making a new party to run a concurrent game alongside my existing one and ended up with the same stupid party lol. I run in game A the following Pally(sword & board) Fighter(2-h) Fighter/thief dual Cleric/ranger Mage/cleric Bard Granted I'm extremely rusty at playing IWD much less the EE version, but I'm dying a lot more than I ever remember doing(still not ridiculous amounts of death, but dying nonetheless more than I ever remember doing before). I wish i could run a similar party but include a druid in there somewhere but druids only mix with fighters(another dumb thing) as I'd even be happy with a cleric/druid combo(godly conflict of interest perhaps according to D&D deity charts which I have no clue about?). I personally also don't like using cleric/mage combos for some reason.
My prefered group would have similarities with a few changes as follows but can't be done
Pally(S&B zzzz) fighter(2H) fighter/thief(warhammers/flail-morninsgstar and a bow) cleric/must it be ranger or mage? fighter/mage( i guess if i knew for sure when to switch classes from fighter to mage as opinions seem to vary) bard/druid
Much of this party can't be done or is impractical but it's what I want dangit!! *pouts*. I look at a lot of party combo threads and I disagree with a lot of them so what am i to do *sigh*.
Druid kits are awesome, 2 out of 3 anyways. Avengers get 2 of the best mage spells, Web ans Chaos. Totemic get cery strong summons. Try throwing one in to replace either the Paladin or 2h fighter. 2h weapons aren't very competetive in IWD, unless you are using a bow and hate switching up your gear for melee. Shields are amazing in IWD, despite being pretty crummy in BG2. Dual wielding gets pretty out of hand too eventually.
Regarding silly restrictions, 3rd really cut that out almost completely. I like it, but some players prefer the more simple/straightforward 2nd ed.
Regarding dualed mages, if uncertain of when to dual, here are some guidelines: standard choices for Berserker are 3, 7, 9, 13, while Kensai really need 9 or better to even consider, with 13 being by far the better warrior over 9th. At 7th, a berserker is just plain better all around. Vanilla Fighters should usually dual at 3 or 7. At 7th, you probably should have gone berserker anyways. For a WIzard Slayer to mage, this is not recomended without some pretty extensive metagame knowledge, and perhaps a willingness to mod/edit, as this is not very strong or easy to play.Imho, just go Berserker. If you still can't decide, a gnome illusionist Fighter is pretty good at tanking, especially with a gnome/halfling exclusive helm available pretty early. You want 18 cons for sure on an I/F, as cons gives a big save vs spells bonus to gnomes!
As for the other party members, a Cavalier or Undead Hunter is probably better than vanilla, while a Skald has a very, very good song to help in combat. A thief can't backstab with non-thief weapons, but if you duales out of thief early, this won't matter. Swaahbuckler is definately the best bet if you wish to make a combaty dual to fighter, and is quite strong late game compared to a pure Fighter.
I've never understood many of the D&D rules. Some combos make absolutely no sense to me while others that do make sense you can't. Classes that use the same skill sets you'd think would make sense to be able to combine. But to me a bard/druid combo makes perfect sense, especially role-playing as a harper let's say. They both use char as far as i know and would give you a potent combo of mage/cleric and bard songs. WOW! too overpowered maybe? Is that why it can't be combined??. I wish i could run a similar party but include a druid in there somewhere but druids only mix with fighters(another dumb thing) as I'd even be happy with a cleric/druid combo(godly conflict of interest perhaps according to D&D deity charts which I have no clue about?). I personally also don't like using cleric/mage combos for some reason.
Never confuse the game's engine limitations with proper 2E rules implementation.
The following multi-classes exist: druid/bard, druid/fighter, druid/ranger, druid/mage, and druid/fighter/mage
The druid’s restriction to neutral alignment limits the dual-class options to bard/druid, fighter/druid, mage/druid, and thief/druid as well as ranger/druid
Well, i dual classed the 3 fighters at lv7, just started Luremaster and they are all close to hitting the lv30 cap, the game just showers you with experience at Insane setting, and it's not even hard with all chars at -10 or lower AC...
Well, i dual classed the 3 fighters at lv7, just started Luremaster and they are all close to hitting the lv30 cap, the game just showers you with experience at Insane setting, and it's not even hard with all chars at -10 or lower AC...
That is why version 1.4 now includes an option to turn off extra experience when playing the higher difficulty settings (there is also a separate option to stop the damage increase as well).
Comments
http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/yadult/other/sickle.jpg
Seems reasonable to m that druids can use curved swrds
and yes it belonged to Getafix
Pally(sword & board)
Fighter(2-h)
Fighter/thief dual
Cleric/ranger
Mage/cleric
Bard
Granted I'm extremely rusty at playing IWD much less the EE version, but I'm dying a lot more than I ever remember doing(still not ridiculous amounts of death, but dying nonetheless more than I ever remember doing before). I wish i could run a similar party but include a druid in there somewhere but druids only mix with fighters(another dumb thing) as I'd even be happy with a cleric/druid combo(godly conflict of interest perhaps according to D&D deity charts which I have no clue about?). I personally also don't like using cleric/mage combos for some reason.
My prefered group would have similarities with a few changes as follows but can't be done
Pally(S&B zzzz)
fighter(2H)
fighter/thief(warhammers/flail-morninsgstar and a bow)
cleric/must it be ranger or mage?
fighter/mage( i guess if i knew for sure when to switch classes from fighter to mage as opinions seem to vary)
bard/druid
Much of this party can't be done or is impractical but it's what I want dangit!! *pouts*. I look at a lot of party combo threads and I disagree with a lot of them so what am i to do *sigh*.
Regarding silly restrictions, 3rd really cut that out almost completely. I like it, but some players prefer the more simple/straightforward 2nd ed.
Regarding dualed mages, if uncertain of when to dual, here are some guidelines: standard choices for Berserker are 3, 7, 9, 13, while Kensai really need 9 or better to even consider, with 13 being by far the better warrior over 9th. At 7th, a berserker is just plain better all around. Vanilla Fighters should usually dual at 3 or 7. At 7th, you probably should have gone berserker anyways. For a WIzard Slayer to mage, this is not recomended without some pretty extensive metagame knowledge, and perhaps a willingness to mod/edit, as this is not very strong or easy to play.Imho, just go Berserker. If you still can't decide, a gnome illusionist Fighter is pretty good at tanking, especially with a gnome/halfling exclusive helm available pretty early. You want 18 cons for sure on an I/F, as cons gives a big save vs spells bonus to gnomes!
As for the other party members, a Cavalier or Undead Hunter is probably better than vanilla, while a Skald has a very, very good song to help in combat. A thief can't backstab with non-thief weapons, but if you duales out of thief early, this won't matter. Swaahbuckler is definately the best bet if you wish to make a combaty dual to fighter, and is quite strong late game compared to a pure Fighter.
The following multi-classes exist: druid/bard, druid/fighter, druid/ranger, druid/mage, and druid/fighter/mage
The druid’s restriction to neutral alignment limits the dual-class options to bard/druid, fighter/druid, mage/druid, and thief/druid as well as ranger/druid
Some of these you can kEEper around but sadly Bard Dual/Multi classing you cannot - yet anyway:
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/24789/request-externalise-bard-class-to-allow-dual-multiclass