Multi- and Dual-class kits (THE POLL)
Silence
Member Posts: 437
There are a number of individual threads discussing the potential benefits and pitfalls of expanded kit access for multi-class and dual-class characters. I thought it would be helpful to put these discussions into a single thread. At the same time, I think it's a great way to poll fan response. So, without further ado, which of the following features make the most sense to you:
- Multi- and Dual-class kits (THE POLL)207 votes
- Multi-class characters may have 1 kit.12.08%
- Multi-class characters may have up to 2 kits.3.38%
- Dual-class characters can obtain a kit in their second class.18.84%
- Multi-class and dual-class characters have expanded kit access.36.71%
- Leave the system intact.28.99%
1
Comments
Do not try to fix what isn't broken
I DO however see the replayability and personalization options for having fully expanded kit options... AND I could totally see myself rolling a Berserker/Swashbuckler/Wildmage... I think that'd be freaking AMAZING, but at the same time, I really think that'll just be overkill, and cause issues that no one, including me, is aware of at the moment...
I Really would Like a Berserker/ASSASSIN/Wildmage; now that I think about it...
The entire idea of kits is actually to make single class characters, multi-class labelled, without having everything.
I hope we never go down this road for ad&d 2nd based game, as it basically wouldn't be that anymore, if we do.
I must say to regret that some liberty are present within the rules, and those have my endorsement, should they be possible to add through the game mechanics which I somewhat doubt.
Here goes, for those interested:
Warrior Kits and Multi-Class Characters
These Warrior Kits are designed to add depth to a warrior-class character. But if
the character is already multi-class (for example, an elf fighter-mage), he doesn't need
any more depth. Therefore, only single-class warriors can take one of the Warrior Kits
described above.
However, with your DM's permission, there's no reason why a multi-class warrior
can't use his weapon and nonweapon proficiency choices to simulate one of the Kits .
. . and, again with DM permission, the characters possessing that Warrior Kit can
consider him "one of their own" within the context of the campaign.
For example, let us say that your campaign features an elvish Amazon tribe and
you want to play an elf fighter/thief who belongs to that Amazon tribe.
Build her this way: Have her take Spear and Long Bow Weapon Proficiencies. For
her Nonweapon Proficiencies, have her take Riding (Land-Based) and Animal
Training (she doesn't get either of these for free, like the "real" Amazon, but she can
still choose them). For her Equipment, limit her to the equipment choices of the
Amazon.
If you do all this, and have your DM's permission, within the context of the
campaign, your character will be considered an Amazon. That is, she comes from the
Amazon tribe and the other Amazons consider her to be a shield-sister and one of
their own. You know, and the DM knows, that she doesn't have all the special benefits
of the Amazon Warrior Kit. And the DM is within his rights to assign the character
the special hindrances of the Amazon—after all, you've chosen for her to be identified
with a race of people with those hindrances. But to all outward eyes, she is
indistinguishable from any other elvish Amazon.
________
Warrior Kits and Dual-Class Characters
The same is not true of dual-class characters.
If a character starts off as a warrior, he may take any of the Warrior Kits above. If,
later, he decides to change classes according to the normal Dual-Class Benefits and
Restrictions rules, he doesn't lose any of the benefits or hindrances of the Kit he
chose; he is still that sort of fighter. If that second character class also has a range of
Kits available to it, he may not choose a new, additional Kit.
If a character starts off as some other character class, does not take on a Kit
appropriate to that class, and then later switches to one of the warrior classes, he can
choose a Warrior Kit at that time . . . though the DM may insist that certain campaign
events be accomplished in order to allow him to do this.
For instance, let's say that a human mage decides, later in life, to become a
Fighter, and he wants to be a Gladiator. Well, there's nothing wrong with that. But the
DM should insist that the next several adventures deal with that transformation. The
character must be hired by (or, alternatively, captured and enslaved by) an arena or
fighting-stable owner, trained, and pitted against other Gladiators. The other
characters in the campaign could also be entering the gladiatorial arena, or the DM
could contrive things so that the current adventure involves gladiatorial elements and
still get all the PCs involved.
To better simulate the wait involved for the character to learn his new trade, the
DM is within his rights to insist that the character not receive his Warrior Kit until
he's reached second experience level in his new class.
_________
So yea, in short - multi-class, No-Go - Dual-class, Go
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/comment/75446/#Comment_75446
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/3004/fat-thread-multiclassing-and-such
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/2796/double-kits/p1
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/comment/71958/#Comment_71958
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/4680/dual-classing-balance#latest
I'm sure there's a huge mess of threads on this topic at reddit too.
" Do not allow any kits for multi and dual-calss " ?
@Silence Yessir. Or Ma'am? Yesperson works. Anyways, I dumped a significant amount of time into researching and testing the effects of such a change. I'd love to see multikits in BG:EE, and as I found out later, there's actually a mod that implements them. They're incredibly fun to play around with and add a whole additional layer of customization to character creation.
The one change I would like to see would be for multiclass fighters to be able to put more than 2 points in their weapon proficiencies. Right now it seems like dualclass fighters have huge advantages over multiclass since they can choose a kit, they get more HP, and they can get grand mastery in their weapons.
Next issue.
I'm going with my tried and true single class: Necromancer. If mages or specialist wizards could have kits, I'd probably go with the Philosopher from The Complete Book of Necromancers or the Academician from The Complete Wizard's Handbook.
I'ld love to dualkit. Not that it was intended by the core rules, but that will be my ~5th full playthrough, so I'ld love that extra variety.
I mean the choice is obv. optional, but I mean making the player aware that this could be game/balance breaking.
If given the kits available in BG2, BG would allow for core-class/kitted class or kitted class/core-class.
Sadly, BG2 only allows for a kit for the first class. As @killeah mentioned in his post, PnP rules state that duel-classes may have one kit either as the first or second class.
So open up the kits for multi and dual classed characters. If you don't like it, it won't affect YOUR game. If you want to host a multiplayer game, have all the players agree that no one will be a multikit character when creating the game.
BTW someone asked if you couldn't edit a multikit character in game. You can't. It's hardcoded for a single kit. So you could have a multiclass kensai/mage or a fighter/mage/cleric of Lathander, for instance, but no kensai/conjurer/cleric of Lathander, for instance.
It's possible, but requires some tricky coding, as I understand it. I've played around with it and it's insanely fun.
also, If one is so keen on breaking the 2nd edition rules, one shouldn't be playing a game based upon them.
I simply can't endorse the idea of ignoring the ruleset, it's just sacriledge!!
http://www.gibberlings3.net/level1npcs/
Monks, Sorcerers, Blackguards, and a wide variety of other things. Baldur's Gate is BASED upon 2nd edition, but regularly takes breaks from the system for the sake of gameplay and/or rule of cool. It's hardly sacrilege because it's already been done multiple times and not really caused that much of an issue.
What I mean is this is a single player computer game and I treat it as such. It follows some basic rules of second edition and then implements tremendous gameplay changes to make it more enjoyable as a game, there is no DM to solve game problems, so it has to be flexible. Anyone who is against the implementation of things that were not in the rules should be also requesting the removal of sorcerers, the changes to the Inquisitor, changes to spells and creatures, changes in the character creation so that no attribute is automatically raised to match a class/kit minimum etc...
I just think, that BG, and to some extend BG2 did an excellent job in transforming 2nd edition to the gaming audience. As @Miloch mentioned many of the kits/classes are infact sub kits from various handbooks, including monks and barbarians.
The inquisitor is clearly altered with the purpose of fitting the BG2:SOA setting, something any reasonable DM would do in a pNp adventure.
It's not that I can't accept minor abbrevations, those are infact endorsed by DM guide, and other relevant 2nd edition books.
But changing core rules like the entire scope of character creation, which I belive it is when you allow multiple kits on multi-class chars, simply isn't in my book of "OK's"
And it would be a shame to alter the brilliant conversion done, especially in original BG.
What I would however love to see, is 50-60, approved 2nd edition kits (perhaps BG setting altered) on top of the current. Plenty of inspiration to get from various handbooks, and the FR world setting.
But for all that is 2nd edition, please leave the multi-class kit free