What happens to stealth when you dual from ranger to thief?

Cloutier

Does it stack or whack?

CrevsDaak

You can't dual from Ranger to Thief. But, if that was possible, I'd say it gets reset when you dual but stacks once you get your Ranger abilities back.

Cloutier

Really? I had no idea you couldn't do that.

JumboWheat01

The easiest way to know what you can dual with in the games is to look at the multiclasses. If it exist as a multiclass, you can dual it.

Though for future reference this is what you can combine:

Fighter/Thief
Fighter/Mage
Fighter/Cleric
Fighter/Druid

Cleric/Mage
Cleric/Thief
Cleric/Ranger

Mage/Thief

Of course, as a human, you can have a kit for your initial class, but not your second one.

deltago

Second Edition, you'd lose the lower number.

Much like when a fighter dualled to a thief puts two pips in long swords when a fighter and one pip when he is a thief, he'd have 2, not 3 when he regains his fighter levels.

Son_of_Imoen

Question is, is there a way to mod the game so as to make a Ranger-Thief dual possible? If it isn't, the question is purely academic. If it is, it can be tried by creating a Ranger with 15+ STR (and 15+ WIS?) and 17+ DEX, use EEkeeper to give him enough XP to dual, then give him enough xp to get the ranger skills back and see what happens. Perhaps an anomaly that will swallow Faerun.

semiticgoddess

@Son_of_Imoen: No. You can rig the .2da tables to let you dual-class from ranger to thief, paladin to fighter, or druid to mage, but the game will crash. That much is hard-coded.

You can, however, use some clever modding to roughly replicate a ranger/thief dual. One way to do it would be to tweak a low-level cleric/thief dual-class so it gets fighter-style combat bonuses and ranger spells instead of cleric spells. But getting it right would involve a LOT of tiny tweaks.

If you really want to create a Ranger/Thief for your next run, I can help you put it together.

ThacoBell

I wish it was possible to multiclass a ranger/thief.

tbone1

Yeah, I hear you. I always thought a Druid/thief or monk/mage would be an interesting combo

semiticgoddess

All of these things are possible, of course, in Icewind Dale 2.

tbone1

semiticgod said:

All of these things are possible, of course, in Icewind Dale 2.

And in NWN, I believe. But that seems different, somehow.

ThacoBell

I really don't like the way multiclass is handled in 3e.

deltago

ThacoBell said:

I really don't like the way multiclass is handled in 3e.

Really?
Leaving out 4 because it is like the Baldur's Gate novels and should never be mentioned in serious discussion...

3.5 seems to be the most versatile when it comes to multi-classing. What didn't you like about it?

Son_of_Imoen

semiticgod said:

If you really want to create a Ranger/Thief for your next run, I can help you put it together.

Thanks for your insightful reply @semiticgod . I was just contributing to the discussion however, I wouldn't want to dual from ranger to thief myself, like the OP would like to, as I dislike going against the rules. But it's true I said, the anomaly would swallow Faerun: as you said, the game crashes: [FATAL ERROR Faerun doesn't run no more]

Arctodus

deltago said:

ThacoBell said:

I really don't like the way multiclass is handled in 3e.

Really?
Leaving out 4 because it is like the Baldur's Gate novels and should never be mentioned in serious discussion...

3.5 seems to be the most versatile when it comes to multi-classing. What didn't you like about it?

For me, while I like the basic mechanics of dual classing in 3.5e for the basic classes, when you add in the prestige class, this is where the system completely breaks. Prestige classes were supposed to replicate the kits of AD&D, but they simply are bonuses on top on everything else. Kits are supposed to involve drawbacks. With this mechanic, 3.5e then become a munchkin/powergamer wetdream.

Between the logic of Prestige classes and the kits logic, I much prefer kits.

@ThacoBell : this is probably worthy of the Unpopular Opinion thread.

ThacoBell

@deltago The reasons pointed out by @Arctodus as well as an addmittedly small thing that just bugs the crap out of me. The way they are leveled. In the BG/IWD games, they level concurrently, so you get about 2/3 of the level cap with each class (assuming two classes). With 3e, you select each level separately, so you effectively only get half of your levels, and with most games using a level 20 cap, the individual classes don't really hit any kind of real stride.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

namarie

Arctodus said:

For me, while I like the basic mechanics of dual classing in 3.5e for the basic classes, when you add in the prestige class, this is where the system completely breaks. Prestige classes were supposed to replicate the kits of AD&D, but they simply are bonuses on top on everything else. Kits are supposed to involve drawbacks. With this mechanic, 3.5e then become a munchkin/powergamer wetdream.

Between the logic of Prestige classes and the kits logic, I much prefer kits.

I'm not exactly a D&D veteran (only learned about D&D after 3E and started actually playing during 3.5E years so I'm not sure if prestige classes are meant to emulate kits... but assuming they are, PrCs do come with drawbacks quite often. Most of them involve loss of caster levels (explicit or implicit), loss of BAB, school prohibition, and slowed/no original class feature advancement. This is often true even for some of the most powerful/overpowered prestige classes such as Incantatrix (school prohibition), Dweomerkeeper (implicit loss of caster level due to multiclass requirement), Bone Knight (explicit loss of caster level), Archmage (must trade spell slots for class features) etc.

Exceptions do exist, but those prestige classes are often the ones that offer relatively few mechanical improvements and more thematic improvements for the character (Alienist for example). Barring a few truly egregious examples (I'm looking at you Planar Shepherd and Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil), most of the classes do come with drawback - although some of them are so powerful that those new abilities are well worth the drawbacks.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

DrakeICN

subtledoctor said:

Honestly I don't think the problem with prestige classes is whether the advantages and drawbacks were balanced. The problem is that they are presented in a way where that balance of advantages vs. drawbacks is a major factor in choosing a prestige class.

2E kits were generally not meant to give your PC more mechanical distinction. There were other systems for that (e.g. prpficiencies). Kits were primarily about flavor, and many kits had few or even no mechanical advantages or drawbacks. (Of course there were some exceptions - *cough* Bladesinger.)

I would love a system that start with a well/balanced version of 3E multiclassing, and a reasonable system of proficirncies and feats, and when you choose a prestige class you get... a cool title.

Player: but what do I get with that title?

DM: Nothing. You just get to call yourself something cool.

Have you played Divinity, Original Sin?

While there are classes, they are merely cosmetic; any character can chose any skill, provided you have the right prerequisites - which is the real snag. Skills get better dependant on your attributes, so a jack of all trades will not excell (but can still be overall more dangerous due to clever combinations).

For an opposite system, where characters are bound by their classes, I think Paper Sorcerer and Pillars of Eternity did a really good job. (And dragon age did a terrible job.)

I actually very much dislike DnD E 3.0 and forward. To many rules, to many classes, to many feats, to many of everything. It's all very chaotic, and as the sour cream on top of the rotten fruit salad, you get severly penalized for multiclassing any spellcaster (well, aside from diverging one or two levels to a warrior type to get some more weapons/armor feats).

JumboWheat01

You should consider looking into 5e, it's a lot lighter on the rules than 3.X and 4e, a lot of people consider it closer to 2e than those.

Son_of_Imoen

DrakeICN said:

For an opposite system, where characters are bound by their classes, I think Paper Sorcerer and Pillars of Eternity did a really good job. (And dragon age did a terrible job.)

You make me curious what it is you dislike about the way Dragon Age handles classes?

DrakeICN

Son_of_Imoen said:

DrakeICN said:

For an opposite system, where characters are bound by their classes, I think Paper Sorcerer and Pillars of Eternity did a really good job. (And dragon age did a terrible job.)

You make me curious what it is you dislike about the way Dragon Age handles classes?

I cant rightly put my finger exactly on the sore spot. When I play most RPG:s it's like I cant wait to level up, think of which skills should I chose for which strategy etc. For DA:O it's more like meh, whatever. Maybe its too balanced - it does not really feel as if the skills change the way you do encounters. At all. Not that the skills suck so you do not used them, but that all you need to know about them is that more = better... so your choice of skills is not really important at all. In fact, your choice of class is also not really important at all, it will only barely impact the way you play. Sure, some units are ranged and some can heal, but that feel more of a cosmetic thing than a gameplay thing.

If DA:O had been a fighting game instead of a RPG, I would call it a button mashing game.

Son_of_Imoen

Yes, I understand you now. Dragon Age is too easy compared to Baldur's Gate with the Stratagems Mod. Whichever path or party I choose, I can win almost any fight without risking losing some party member's life *edit: even at 'Nightmare' difficulty. The same thing can't be said about BG + SCS. Someone should make a tactics mod for DA:O.

(*) and anything below Nightmare difficulty is a joke in DA:O.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

semiticgoddess

@subtledoctor: If you were to design a kit around it, I think a backstabbing ranger that can't pick pockets, open locks, and/or detect illusions would make conceptual sense. A good-aligned ranger would see the use in stealth and traps, but have little interest in thievery. Using alternate HLAs to Assassination, Time Trap, and Use Any Item would also fit the concept.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

AstroBryGuy

semiticgod said:

@subtledoctor: If you were to design a kit around it, I think a backstabbing ranger that can't pick pockets, open locks, and/or detect illusions would make conceptual sense. A good-aligned ranger would see the use in stealth and traps, but have little interest in thievery. Using alternate HLAs to Assassination, Time Trap, and Use Any Item would also fit the concept.

Sounds like a Stalker with added Find/Set Traps ability, which would actually be very useful for a character in the "scout" role.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

DJKajuru

semiticgod said:

@subtledoctor: If you were to design a kit around it, I think a backstabbing ranger that can't pick pockets, open locks, and/or detect illusions would make conceptual sense. A good-aligned ranger would see the use in stealth and traps, but have little interest in thievery. Using alternate HLAs to Assassination, Time Trap, and Use Any Item would also fit the concept.

I dislike the idea of creating a whole new class concept, so I'd rather stick to its original concepts to do this kind of multiclass: a ranger-thief is actually a thief who has an affinity with the wilderness and acts as a hunter of its favored enemy.

To balance it I would remove the ranger ability to cast spells and decrease number of thief skill points per level.

bron2794

Always wanted to play a ranger thief, mainly for role play purposes. Wouldn't be any better than a fighter thief as the ranger class would level slower then a fighter class. Is it possible to move/turn ranger in to a fighter class so you can duall to anything?