Cleric/Ranger spell slots
realshemp
Member Posts: 33
I’ve just started a play though of BG2 using a Cleric/Ranger Multiclass as CHARNAME and ran into a bug. I hit level 8 in Ranger and unlocked level 1 Druid spells as it should, but DID NOT get the additional level 1 Slot that a Ranger should have. I have an 18 wisdom so have the 5 slots that a level 8 Cleric gives me but not the 6th that the Ranger level should unlock. Has anybody else seen this issue? Where do I go to report this bug?
0
Comments
It is technically a bug, but I think you should probably request it as a Feature Request.
A level 6/7 Fighter/Mage multiclass has the proficiency pips of a level 6 Fighter and the lore of a level 7 mage. The same principle applies here: A level 8/8 Cleric/Ranger multiclass has the spell slots of a level 8 Cleric and the THAC0 of a level 8 Ranger.
Exactly. In PnP they most assuredly get additional spell slots as part of their ranger levels. The attraction of playing Cleric/Ranger FOR ME was not the crappy Druid spells they get, but rather the ability to have a few extra divine spells at their disposal. Otherwise there is no reason to ever play a Cleric/Ranger over a Fighter/Cleric. I'm giving up the extra proficiency slots and better Thaco for a few extra spells by going Ranger instead of Fighter, but in this implementation I'm giving up the better melee stats for nothing.
not true... in 2nd edition D&D, which this game is based on, Cleric/Rangers got an additional slot at Ranger level 8 that could only be used for Druid spells.
This also is an incorrect implementation... the lore should be cumulative of all levels gained as should the proficiency slots. Each level you gain in a certain class gives you specific gains - +x lore, +x prof slots, +x spell slots, and each of those are applied as you level in that particular class, otherwise you get a gimped character that has 16 character levels but only the lore, prof, spell slots, thac0, etc of a level 8 character.
about a r/c getting druid spells of a level a ranger will never be able to cast it is a completely different thing. by default it is off in ee, even if it can be turned on.
As it should be, Rangers should not get Druid Spells above 3rd level. That, I agree, was a bug in the original version that needed to be fixed. But not getting the additional spell slots was also a bug (if it is indeed the way it worked in the original BG2 - I really don't remember) which should have been fixed at the same time. They should have either fixed them both or fixed neither.
For gaining proficiency points and THAC0 the Player Handbook is explicit about using that of the fastest progression class in the multi-class combination. So that is implemented correctly.
Lore is harder to give a definite way it should be as it is not a core rule (what is in is that bard has 5% chance per level to understand any magic items he finds). But a level 5/5 thief/mage having more lore than a level 8 wizard (which would be the consequence) does not sound reasonable to me. Highest sounds reasonable to me here as well.
@realshemp I suspect you're referring to a specific house rule used by the DM in games you've played in. If you believe this is actually a general 2nd edition rule, then what's your source for this? As @ammar has said your view on how the game should be played is clearly contrary to the rule books in relation to proficiencies, which makes me suspect you are also referring to a house rule in relation to spell availability.
The reason why a cleric/mage gets additional spells and a cleric/ranger does not is that in a multi-class you only get the best option for any particular ability from your different classes rather than adding them together. It's pretty obvious that has to be the case with something like THAC0, but the same applies with other shared abilities as well. As I explained before, in 2nd edition both druids and clerics are a sub-set of priests and have access to the same overall system of divine spells. That's not the case with cleric/mages where the arcane spells come from a different source.
the reason for not stacking slots has its sense given the reason you tell about. if cleric, druid and ranger use sub sets of the same thing is correct that slot number, like thac0 does not stack. but then the R/C probably should be allowed to cast high level druid spells. normally he can't, not for some reason that prevents him to have access to high level druidic magic, he just don't have the high level divine slots.
if druid and cleric magic are so close, are sub sets of the same thing, that the slots can not be staked then a c/m should have access to druid magic from his ranger side and to high level slots from the cleric one.
maybe at the end the way it was implemented in the original game is the correct one...
@gorgonzola I don't think so. In 2nd edition all divine magic is split up between 16 spheres of influence (that system was not adopted into Baldur's Gate though). The type of priest you are determines which spheres you can access. So, for instance, druids can access animal, elemental, healing, plant, weather and divination spheres. For all except the last they have major access, meaning they can use all spells from that sphere, but for divination they only have minor access, meaning they can only cast spells up to level 3.
Rangers effectively have minor access only to the plant and animal spheres, while standard clerics have no access to the plant, animal and weather spheres. It thus seems reasonable that cleric/rangers can only cast up to 3rd level spells from the plant and animal spheres, i.e. they are taking the best access to each sphere of either of their classes in the standard fashion for a multi-class character.
how it can be "translated" while playing the computer game, in which the spheres are not implemented, but some druid only or cleric only spells are used instead and a caster is allowed to cast every spell allowed to his class, druid or cleric, as long as he has a suitable slot, is more a matter of opinion.
the original developers, for a bug or maybe intentionally, gave a "house rule" that allowed to the ranger to use all druid magic, if he had slots to do it, the EE ones adopt a different rule, but ( and i really appreciate it as i am a firm believer of the freedom of the player to play as he likes) give the chance to continue with the old one if someone wish to do so.
probably i have played a single r/c in 20 years of bg2, and it was in the original game so with all the druid spells, i find it not too op, imho a kitted warrior dualed to cleric is much more powerful.
For a while I was confused, because the G3 Tweakpack ("cd_Tweaks" now) has taught me that in Icewind Dale II rangers are able to cast spells as high as level 6. But after a little research I found out that IWD2 actually uses the third edition.
While I'm not sure how things are in PnP, in BG:EE, cleric/rangers have more proficiency slots than fighter/clerics, not fewer, because cleric/rangers start with two points in Two-Weapon Style. Even the fact that fighter/clerics level up faster doesn't make up for this. At max level in Throne of Bhaal (level 25/21 cleric/ranger and level 24/25 fighter/cleric), the cleric/ranger still has one more proficiency point than the fighter/cleric.
In addition, although the main advantage of fighters over rangers and paladins is their ability to get more than two proficiency points in a weapon, fighter/clerics can only get two, whereas cleric/rangers can get two just like single-classed rangers.
In terms of THAC0, cleric/rangers will have slightly worse THAC0 than fighter/clerics, but that's only because they level up more slowly.
In the pre-EE Icewind Dale, although cleric/rangers didn't get extra proficiency points, they had another advantage over fighter/clerics in that game: they got an extra attack per round if they wielded a melee weapon without a shield.
I've argued in this thread that a ranger/cleric should not be able to cast high level druid spells and I'm comfortable in that position, but there is a potential argument the other way as well. That goes like this:
- clerics can cast clerical spells.
- rangers can cast druidical spells
- therefore cleric/rangers can cast druidical spells
Whether that argument is right or not depends on how you view the ranger's access to spells. Beamdog have interpreted that as intentionally restricting the ranger from having high level druid spells - and that restriction then carries into the cleric/ranger. Alternatively though you could take the line that rangers are just limited to level 3 spells by their class (and there was no intention to specifically prohibit higher level druid spells). As clerics are not so restricted that restriction is not then applied to the ranger/cleric. That is in fact the general way multi-class restrictions operate, e.g. a fighter/mage can use helmets and shields and benefit from higher constitution though a mage cannot (the restrictions on types of weapons used don't follow that general rule, but the rationale for that is specifically set out in the manuals).
I've reread the relevant sections of the Players Handbook and Dungeon Masters Guide to see if there's a definitive answer on this (as there is with the question of proficiencies for instance). I think the source material is consistent with either interpretation, which is one reason why it is reasonable for Beamdog to allow either interpretation to be applied to the EE games.
Yeah, this. There are no 'ranger' or 'cleric' spells, it's all divine magic--your class and deity define your spellbook via access to spheres (major, minor, or none). Rather than framing it as getting 'ranger' spell slots, it's more accurate that you access the divine spheres of magic available to rangers.
Like most things, DMs probably house-ruled this as they saw fit. BG really doesn't enforce spheres, though the cleric/paladin vs. ranger/druid sort of reflect their PnP spheres. Presumably this was a concession to gameplay--imagine how much it would suck if only Talos clerics have access to Chaotic Commands, as PnP rules would dictate.