I'm torn. On one hand, Shaman feels unique enough that it shouldn't be allowed to multi or dual. On the other hand, Shaman feels unique enough that it would be really interesting to multi or dual.
I'm torn. On one hand, Shaman feels unique enough that it shouldn't be allowed to multi or dual. On the other hand, Shaman feels unique enough that it would be really interesting to multi or dual.
Shaman/Druid. Mmmm...
..That kinda sounds like a Sorcerer/Mage multi.. also, I think the old rules only allow one class per sphere for multi & dual (Warriors, Scoundrels, Divine, Arcane) but I could be wrong ^_^
The only real dual I can think of would be Barbarian - > Shaman.. A fighter who discovers the spirits and begins to work with them (for the good of the tribe ;-) )
I'm torn. On one hand, Shaman feels unique enough that it shouldn't be allowed to multi or dual. On the other hand, Shaman feels unique enough that it would be really interesting to multi or dual.
Shaman/Druid. Mmmm...
..That kinda sounds like a Sorcerer/Mage multi.. also, I think the old rules only allow one class per sphere for multi & dual (Warriors, Scoundrels, Divine, Arcane) but I could be wrong ^_^
The only real dual I can think of would be Barbarian - > Shaman.. A fighter who discovers the spirits and begins to work with them (for the good of the tribe ;-) )
A guy can dream, can't he? I love my druids, and my shamans, but yeah, it would seem slightly redundant among other things.
I would think that combinations like Shaman/Ranger, Shaman/Druid, and Shaman/Cleric would be difficult, due to there only being one divine spellbook for the character. Since the spell slots function differently (memorized vs. sorcerer-style), it would be very difficult to mix them. Cleric/Rangers work because the spell slots function the same.
Not saying it's impossible, but it would likely be a re-write of the spell handling system.
Shaman/Fighter and Shaman/Thief should be easier to make work. Shaman/Mage might run afoul of the same issue (it depends on how "sorcerer-style" casting mechanic is applied - i.e., can it be applied separately to the arcane/divine spellbooks or is it a character-wide setting).
Seeing as the D&D lore supports dual- and multi-class options for the class, there is no reason not to allow that in the game, save for one exception: lack of developing time.
People who don't like the feature can always just play a single-class shaman; no reason to stop others from going multi or dual just because you personally wouldn't do it.
People keep dropping the "engine limitation" line on all these expanded multi-class/dual class requests.
That statement is true for modders, but I don't see it as a reason for the EE's not to have them. After all, they have the IE source code. It might be difficult, or too much work, but it's only _currently_ a limitation of the engine.. they can change it, if there's a good enough business case.
All these "no, because X class can't multi/dual due to engine limitations" posts are really "yes, I wouldn't mind it. Lets expand the engine so that it can be done" =D
People keep dropping the "engine limitation" line on all these expanded multi-class/dual class requests.
That statement is true for modders, but I don't see it as a reason for the EE's not to have them. After all, they have the IE source code. It might be difficult, or too much work, but it's only _currently_ a limitation of the engine.. they can change it, if there's a good enough business case.
All these "no, because X class can't multi/dual due to engine limitations" posts are really "yes, I wouldn't mind it. Lets expand the engine so that it can be done" =D
No, actually it's "please ignore all petitions that would require adding months of writing/coding/Q&A time and just focus on SHIPPING THE GAME". If Beamdog wants to go back and make half-orc/half-drow/half-human shaman/berserker/shadowdancer multiclasses possible AFTER that, more power to them. But don't delay the release of the game at this point to add new features.
People keep dropping the "engine limitation" line on all these expanded multi-class/dual class requests.
That statement is true for modders, but I don't see it as a reason for the EE's not to have them. After all, they have the IE source code. It might be difficult, or too much work, but it's only _currently_ a limitation of the engine.. they can change it, if there's a good enough business case.
All these "no, because X class can't multi/dual due to engine limitations" posts are really "yes, I wouldn't mind it. Lets expand the engine so that it can be done" =D
No, actually it's "please ignore all petitions that would require adding months of writing/coding/Q&A time and just focus on SHIPPING THE GAME". If Beamdog wants to go back and make half-orc/half-drow/half-human shaman/berserker/shadowdancer multiclasses possible AFTER that, more power to them. But don't delay the release of the game at this point to add new features.
This may be the last time Beamdog releases any infinity engine game. Best to make requests for what we want now.
People keep dropping the "engine limitation" line on all these expanded multi-class/dual class requests.
That statement is true for modders, but I don't see it as a reason for the EE's not to have them. After all, they have the IE source code. It might be difficult, or too much work, but it's only _currently_ a limitation of the engine.. they can change it, if there's a good enough business case.
All these "no, because X class can't multi/dual due to engine limitations" posts are really "yes, I wouldn't mind it. Lets expand the engine so that it can be done" =D
No, actually it's "please ignore all petitions that would require adding months of writing/coding/Q&A time and just focus on SHIPPING THE GAME". If Beamdog wants to go back and make half-orc/half-drow/half-human shaman/berserker/shadowdancer multiclasses possible AFTER that, more power to them. But don't delay the release of the game at this point to add new features.
This may be the last time Beamdog releases any infinity engine game. Best to make requests for what we want now.
People keep dropping the "engine limitation" line on all these expanded multi-class/dual class requests.
That statement is true for modders, but I don't see it as a reason for the EE's not to have them. After all, they have the IE source code. It might be difficult, or too much work, but it's only _currently_ a limitation of the engine.. they can change it, if there's a good enough business case.
All these "no, because X class can't multi/dual due to engine limitations" posts are really "yes, I wouldn't mind it. Lets expand the engine so that it can be done" =D
No, actually it's "please ignore all petitions that would require adding months of writing/coding/Q&A time and just focus on SHIPPING THE GAME". If Beamdog wants to go back and make half-orc/half-drow/half-human shaman/berserker/shadowdancer multiclasses possible AFTER that, more power to them. But don't delay the release of the game at this point to add new features.
This may be the last time Beamdog releases any infinity engine game. Best to make requests for what we want now.
Great. Look forward to the release in 2017, then.
It would take a lot longer than that to rewrite the engine to alow (say) multiclass sorcerers. Of course, without the revenue from a published game, 2017 is about the point where Beamdog run out money and go bust.
The original game took around 2.5 years. Beamdog have about one sixth of the number of people, so to rebuild the game from the ground up would take them about 15 years.
How come you can have a discussion about multi/dual classing the Shaman when you haven't even read the class description yet?
For multiple reasons ^^ 1) We are a tad bored and want to play SoD finally =P 2) We have some vague description and ppl who try to analyze that (and ppl who plan their new character already ^_^) 3) @billbisco hopes to prevent the release of SoD with creating petitions during the alpha stage instead of waiting for the post-shipping & pre-patch stage. Why is he doing that? No clue.. lost a bet? ^^
@kilvitz Multiclassing and dual classing are inherent parts of 2e. Shamans can multi and dual class in 2e. The devs stated that they were open to multi and dual class shamans in SoD.
@Arcanis You don't wait to make requests, you make them as early as possible, that is the best chance to get one implemented.
Sorcerer is a 3rd edition class, and as such should be able to multi and duel class freely.
The only reason it can't is due to game engine limitations. It has nothing to do with "rules".
We don't know if the shaman will be affected by those same game engine limitations.
if shaman is allowed to dualclass, sorcerer must be allowed too
game engine limitation might be a rationale for instituting this rule in the BG adaptation of d&d rules but lex dura sed lex. it's still just a rule like any other.
@bob_veng Feel free to make a Sorceror multi and dual petition. Just because Sorceror got a raw deal in ToB does not mean Shamans deserve a raw deal too.
There is no engine limitation! Please see above multiclass sorceror link.
Sorcerer is a 3rd edition class, and as such should be able to multi and duel class freely.
The only reason it can't is due to game engine limitations. It has nothing to do with "rules".
We don't know if the shaman will be affected by those same game engine limitations.
if shaman is allowed to dualclass, sorcerer must be allowed too
game engine limitation might be a rationale for instituting this rule in the BG adaptation of d&d rules but lex dura sed lex. it's still just a rule like any other.
Um, why? If they think it is fine balancing wise to let Shaman dual, why would they *have* to allow sorceres? As far as we can see Shaman is a houseclass, thus we can't really argue with the original rules here.. Monk, barbarian and sorcerer are also houseclasses which are inspired by the 3rd edition, they are 2nd AD&D, but still houseclasses so it is up to the GM to decide about dual/multi - and for those three the GM (in this case Bioware) said NO.
@Arcanis did Bioware say no because of balance reasons, or choice or because the engine didn't support it at the time and would have been too costly/timeconsuming to implement?
We'll never know, but that doesn't mean that as custodians/creators, Beamdog can't change that now.
@billbisco I'm not familiar with the GemRB source code, but afaik isn't it completely new code? In which case it doesn't really apply to IE. Sorry.
Sorcerer is a 3rd edition class, and as such should be able to multi and duel class freely.
The only reason it can't is due to game engine limitations. It has nothing to do with "rules".
We don't know if the shaman will be affected by those same game engine limitations.
if shaman is allowed to dualclass, sorcerer must be allowed too
game engine limitation might be a rationale for instituting this rule in the BG adaptation of d&d rules but lex dura sed lex. it's still just a rule like any other.
That makes no sense whatsever.
A Sorcerer can't multiclass. A Druid can multiclass. Why should a Shaman be like a Sorcerer rather than like a Druid?!
If Beamdog invent a new class, then they are free to invent any rules they like for that class.
The real question isn't "do you want a multiclass Shaman?" it's "how much longer would you be prepered to wait for SoD?"
@Faydark Gemrb is an open source implementation of the infinity engine. It is designed to use the native files and structure of the infinity engine game contents such as bg1, bg2, iwd, pst, iwd2, etx.
What is different is that it unhardcodes many files that are hardcoded in the infinity engine such as classes.2da and others. That's why you see feature requests to externalize various hardcoded features. There is a feature request to externalize classes. If you could take a look and support that, that'd be great.
@Faydark Gemrb is an open source implementation of the infinity engine. It is designed to use the native files and structure of the infinity engine game contents such as bg1, bg2, iwd, pst, iwd2, etx.
What is different is that it unhardcodes many files that are hardcoded in the infinity engine such as classes.2da and others. That's why you see feature requests to externalize various hardcoded features. There is a feature request to externalize classes. If you could take a look and support that, that'd be great.
I don't doubt it's *possible* to implement dual/multi-class shamans/sorcerers. The question is whether it is feasible to do without overly delaying SoD/driving up development costs. If it would delay SoD for months while they Q&A test multi-classed shamans, then frankly, I'd rather they released the expansion first, then went back and thought about those kinds of updates later, once people have played it and provided feedback based on gameplay. I wouldn't want SoD to get stuck in development hell.
The code from GemRB is licensed under the GPL, so unless the GemRB authors are willing to sign the rights over to Beamdog or grant them a separate license (I know some of the GemRB contributors work for Beamdog, but I wouldn't assume they can just give Beamdog all the GemRB sourcecode), I would presume the actual GemRB code cannot be re-used. Integrating GemRB code into the Infinity Engine would require releasing the combined project under the GPL, which Beamdog may not have the rights to do. That's assuming it's even technically feasible to do so (the actual coding approach may be so different that you can't simply graft code from GemRB to the Infinity Engine).
Also, Druid/Shamans or Cleric/Shamans shouldn't be possible by 2E rules. You can't dual- or multi-class within the same class group, e.g., no thief/bards, fighter/rangers, cleric/druids etc..
@AstroBryGuy@Avenger_teambg was a developer for Gemrb and now works for Beamdog. I imagine that it wouldn't be a big deal. Given that they had to edit the hardcoding to add the Shaman class makes me hope that they'd externalize it at the same time too given that the common response is not to develop features such as subraces unless their main games do as well.
The original 1989 2e handbook had no group limitations for Dual Classing so a Fighter to Ranger or a Mage to Illusionist was possible. The 1995 2e handbook instituted a restriction on groups, but also allowed up to 4 Dual Classings. Paladin to Cleric was fine as was Bard to Illusionist and so forth.
Dark sun also expanded the list of eligible multiclassings
So yes, a couple of valid multiclasses such as Fighter/Mage/Druid were left out of the core legal 2e options s well as Darksun expanded ones.
I totally wanna play as a Druid / Mage and a Druid/Ranger/Bard
@AstroBryGuy@Avenger_teambg was a developer for Gemrb and now works for Beamdog. I imagine that it wouldn't be a big deal. Given that they had to edit the hardcoding to add the Shaman class makes me hope that they'd externalize it at the same time too given that the common response is not to develop features such as subraces unless their main games.
It depends on how the ownership of the code works. Take the Linux kernel as an example. The Linux kernel is licensed under GPL v2, but the ownership of the code remains with the individual authors. So, you could put Linus Torvalds himself on your payroll, but he still can't give you a non-GPL license to the parts of Linux he didn't write. This is also why the Linux kernel cannot easily be converted to GPL v3 - you'd have to get every author to re-license their code.
I don't know how GemRB handles code-ownership, e.g., original authors retain ownership (like Linux) or rights to all code contributions must be assigned to a central group (like GNU does), but the assumption that because Avenger_teambg works for Beamdog that they have full rights to take code from GemRB is a big one.
Since GemRB is GPL and the EE isn't, I may not (and i don't) copy code from it into EE (or vice versa). Even if i myself wrote that code for GemRB. Fileformats are ok (heh, GemRB copied all of the fileformats of the old IE, otherwise it couldn't work with the old game data), but verbatim copying of actual code isn't.
It's scope creep. Increasing the scope of the Infinity Engine update for SoD (and BGEE/BG2EE) to include multi-/dual-class shamans and other petitions posted (e.g., changing the NPCs in Chateau Irenicus) will increase development and Q&A time (and costs), resulting in a delay in the release of the expansion. I'd rather see it released as soon as it's ready, rather than waiting an extra 6-12 months to add unplanned features.
If Beamdog wants to pursue such changes in an update, fine, but do it AFTER the release.
Comments
Shaman/Druid. Mmmm...
for multi & dual (Warriors, Scoundrels, Divine, Arcane) but I could be wrong ^_^
The only real dual I can think of would be Barbarian - > Shaman..
A fighter who discovers the spirits and begins to work with them (for the good of the tribe ;-) )
The only reason it can't is due to game engine limitations. It has nothing to do with "rules".
We don't know if the shaman will be affected by those same game engine limitations.
https://github.com/lynxlynxlynx/gemrb-mods/tree/master/sorcerer-monk-cleric
Not saying it's impossible, but it would likely be a re-write of the spell handling system.
Shaman/Fighter and Shaman/Thief should be easier to make work. Shaman/Mage might run afoul of the same issue (it depends on how "sorcerer-style" casting mechanic is applied - i.e., can it be applied separately to the arcane/divine spellbooks or is it a character-wide setting).
People who don't like the feature can always just play a single-class shaman; no reason to stop others from going multi or dual just because you personally wouldn't do it.
That statement is true for modders, but I don't see it as a reason for the EE's not to have them. After all, they have the IE source code. It might be difficult, or too much work, but it's only _currently_ a limitation of the engine.. they can change it, if there's a good enough business case.
All these "no, because X class can't multi/dual due to engine limitations" posts are really "yes, I wouldn't mind it. Lets expand the engine so that it can be done" =D
The original game took around 2.5 years. Beamdog have about one sixth of the number of people, so to rebuild the game from the ground up would take them about 15 years.
Of course, my opinion is there is a lot more low hanging fruit that could be plucked first.
1) We are a tad bored and want to play SoD finally =P
2) We have some vague description and ppl who try to analyze that (and ppl who plan their new character
already ^_^)
3) @billbisco hopes to prevent the release of SoD with creating petitions during the alpha stage instead
of waiting for the post-shipping & pre-patch stage. Why is he doing that? No clue.. lost a bet? ^^
@Arcanis You don't wait to make requests, you make them as early as possible, that is the best chance to get one implemented.
game engine limitation might be a rationale for instituting this rule in the BG adaptation of d&d rules but lex dura sed lex. it's still just a rule like any other.
There is no engine limitation! Please see above multiclass sorceror link.
As far as we can see Shaman is a houseclass, thus we can't really argue with the original rules here..
Monk, barbarian and sorcerer are also houseclasses which are inspired by the 3rd edition, they are 2nd
AD&D, but still houseclasses so it is up to the GM to decide about dual/multi - and for those three
the GM (in this case Bioware) said NO.
We'll never know, but that doesn't mean that as custodians/creators, Beamdog can't change that now.
@billbisco I'm not familiar with the GemRB source code, but afaik isn't it completely new code? In which case it doesn't really apply to IE. Sorry.
A Sorcerer can't multiclass. A Druid can multiclass. Why should a Shaman be like a Sorcerer rather than like a Druid?!
If Beamdog invent a new class, then they are free to invent any rules they like for that class.
The real question isn't "do you want a multiclass Shaman?" it's "how much longer would you be prepered to wait for SoD?"
What is different is that it unhardcodes many files that are hardcoded in the infinity engine such as classes.2da and others. That's why you see feature requests to externalize various hardcoded features. There is a feature request to externalize classes. If you could take a look and support that, that'd be great.
The code from GemRB is licensed under the GPL, so unless the GemRB authors are willing to sign the rights over to Beamdog or grant them a separate license (I know some of the GemRB contributors work for Beamdog, but I wouldn't assume they can just give Beamdog all the GemRB sourcecode), I would presume the actual GemRB code cannot be re-used. Integrating GemRB code into the Infinity Engine would require releasing the combined project under the GPL, which Beamdog may not have the rights to do. That's assuming it's even technically feasible to do so (the actual coding approach may be so different that you can't simply graft code from GemRB to the Infinity Engine).
Also, Druid/Shamans or Cleric/Shamans shouldn't be possible by 2E rules. You can't dual- or multi-class within the same class group, e.g., no thief/bards, fighter/rangers, cleric/druids etc..
The original 1989 2e handbook had no group limitations for Dual Classing so a Fighter to Ranger or a Mage to Illusionist was possible. The 1995 2e handbook instituted a restriction on groups, but also allowed up to 4 Dual Classings. Paladin to Cleric was fine as was Bard to Illusionist and so forth.
Dark sun also expanded the list of eligible multiclassings
So yes, a couple of valid multiclasses such as Fighter/Mage/Druid were left out of the core legal 2e options s well as Darksun expanded ones.
I totally wanna play as a Druid / Mage and a Druid/Ranger/Bard
I don't know how GemRB handles code-ownership, e.g., original authors retain ownership (like Linux) or rights to all code contributions must be assigned to a central group (like GNU does), but the assumption that because Avenger_teambg works for Beamdog that they have full rights to take code from GemRB is a big one.
If Beamdog wants to pursue such changes in an update, fine, but do it AFTER the release.