There are so many great kits to try and not enough time to play.
The question I see about Stalkers, from a mechanics standpoint, is efficiency being in favor of the multiclass character. A Fighter/Thief Half-Orc has 19 strength, and so won't need a strength boosting item in BGII for a while, espcially with the strength Tome getting them to 20. They can also be the party's trap/lock specialist, something Stalkers can't do, so you'll still need a thief for that role. A Stalker may get more proficiencies, but by the time you hit BG 2 you don't need that many, since you're limited to 2 pips in any one weapon. Their stats are also a little easier to swing.
Stalkers have some extra utility from their spells. Shield of Faith's damage reduction is very good later in the game. That could make a big difference, especially in ToB, but by the time they get Haste and their other kit spells your mages and/or sorcerers will be able to apply them easily. Freeing up their spell slots is nice, but does not seem incredibly necessary.
You've pretty much hit my own analysis on the head. The stalker will be tankier, especially at high levels, due to a larger hit point pool and Armor of Faith. At low levels, however, the stalker can't go "tank mode" the way the fighter/thief can by putting on heavy armor temporarily. In addition, as higher levels, the fighter/thief has access to traps, detect illusion, and thief HLAs, all of which are fantastic. And, as you note, the fighter/thief can also be the party's thief, if you only want to run one. All in all, I find it a bit difficult to justify the stalker outside of thematic reasons. The fighter/thief seems overall better.
Thought about making a Human Archer then dual classing him into a mage. That way that character can handle ALL the ranged attack and melee as a last resort. That and having a mage that can sneak sounds fun too.
Thought about making a Human Archer then dual classing him into a mage. That way that character can handle ALL the ranged attack and melee as a last resort. That and having a mage that can sneak sounds fun too.
I don't believe you can do that? It'd be awesome if I am wrong, but IIRC you can only dual class into a valid multiclass combo, so you'd have to go Ranger/Cleric, which for an Archer is awful.
I also believe archer->mage is impossible, but archer->cleric should actually be very good in theory (I haven't played one). Archer bonuses apply to slings, and so do Strength bonuses. Between archer bonuses, weapon specialization, and the cleric's ability to increase their Strength, an archer->cleric should be able to dish out some serious damage.
Several reasons. Actually, it goes back to 1e AD&D. In first edition, Rangers got mage spells- I'm not sure why, but they did, at higher levels, along with Druid Spells. Paladins got Cleric spells. For the same reason there is no Paladin/Cleric Class Combo, there is/was no Ranger/Mage. Also, Ranger and Paladin were considered sub-classes. A Paladin could only be a Paladin- not Paladin multi classed with something else. Rangers, nearly the same. (These were mostly human-only classes anyhow, and thus, not able to be multi-classed, as humans can't be multi-classed. Druids could be half-elven (but could only achieve Level 8, and Halflings could get to level 6, but no higher, for Druid at least. And half-elves could be level-limited Rangers as well.) Likewise, the Druid/Ranger was not a valid choice as Rangers already got Druid spells. (Plus, a Druid is, like the Paladin, open mostly to humans due to human attitudes towards nature. Just as Paladins reflect a human understanding of fighting for their faith that nonhumans lacked. Even half-elves and Halflings could apparently only buy so far into those ideas. AND Rangers had to be good, and Druids could only be True Neutral, so these were not seen as compatible alignment-wise.) There was also in 1e AD&D, the Assassin class. Evil alignment only, but open to just about every race. Another human-only class was the Monk (Plus, it was very rare due to the necessary minimum stats. Same with Paladin. In a game where "roll 3d6, in order, for your stats" seemed to be the standard way to roll a character, qualifying for any of the sub-classes was insanely hard. I'd almost say "Nintendo Hard", if you know what I mean). The idea that elves could be Druids (or Rangers) came later.
So, what nixed the idea of Ranger/Mage? Overlap between the two classes already (Rangers already got some mage spells at higher levels). Lack of stats for most people to qualify for both classes at once, and when you get down to it, lack of sub-classes to multi class with another sub-class. The only sub-class that even got mentioned in the allowable multi-class list was Cleric/Ranger. No others. And then, only to half-elves, who were the only ones able to be both of those classes (And even so, they were level-limited in the Ranger class AND the Cleric class as well- only humans could have unlimited level advancement in any class (Thievery was the exception to the this general rule)).
It wasn't until 3e that all limits on level and multi-classing were dropped. (And yeah, I know, Level Limits were horrible. But it came out of E. Gary Gygax wanting a world where humans were supreme, and the other races could live much, much longer than humans. If the levels weren't limited and High Elves could live 2500 years where humans were limited to the high 70's to low 90's, what was to prevent elves, dwarves and so on, from continuing to accumulate experience and be so much better that the humans couldn't compete? I mean, someone who has had 90 years to practice archery and swordplay is going to be staggeringly better than one who has only had 5 or 10- much more than even a +1 to bows and swords can explain away. I'm not saying it was right, but it was meant to support the Tolkienesque subtext that Elves and Dwarves were the "Elder Races" whose time was passing and were being supplanted by humans. It was meant to give humans a leg up on the vastly longer-lived races and make "human" the most attractive race to play if you wanted to power game. I'm not saying it was necessarily a good idea- it was a mechanical way to back up the kind of race-based stories E.G.G. wanted to underlay his world. Later versions of AD&D/D&D had different assumptions about the fantasy worlds they were creating.)
But you can do the same thing kind of with a rogue or a fighter I believe. Dual classing that is.
I also believe archer->mage is impossible, but archer->cleric should actually be very good in theory (I haven't played one). Archer bonuses apply to slings, and so do Strength bonuses. Between archer bonuses, weapon specialization, and the cleric's ability to increase their Strength, an archer->cleric should be able to dish out some serious damage.
Plus, for bonus points, you can name him David.
It seems like a workable plan, but you're denied the really powerful setup with shortbows where you can get five attacks with Tuigan bow, double it to ten with Improved Haste, and then use Critical Strike to deal ten critical hits per round. Slingers can get ten APR with Whirlwind, of course, but not the crits, and they'll generally have a lower APR. I won't deny it can work, but it's not the 24/7 death machine that a standard Archer is.
I'm actually not sure that's true. A slinger can only get up to 6 attackes per round with Improved Haste, true, but an endgame slinger can outdamage the Tuigan Bow by a good 11-15 points of damage per attack (between 22-25 strength and a +5 sling; also factoring in that they lose out on grandmastery bonuses). Depending on the archer's exact damage, that might actually be enough for the slinger to make up the damage difference and then some.
Well, it also just occurred to me that you're not getting Fighter HLA's with a dual-class. Cleric spells and turn undead make up for that, but you don't get GWW or Hardiness.
Oh, I discounted that possibility because dualling so late always struck me as dumb. Throne of Bhaal is the easiest part of the saga, so prioritizing your build so that's when it peaks seems counter intuitive.
Stalker and beast master are both useless classes that need to be rebalanced. The only way to make him work is to dual class the Stalker to Cleric at the 17 lvl point (x4 multiplier) so you can get decent backstabs with the Staff of Ram, anything else can be replaced with a better build. Stalker additional spells selection is laughable, if he is a master of camouflage he should recieve some illusion spells(blur, mirror image) or hide in shadows on will, like the Shadowdancer. And the beast master is just unsalvageble, Beamdog should just delete it
Well, it also just occurred to me that you're not getting Fighter HLA's with a dual-class. Cleric spells and turn undead make up for that, but you don't get GWW or Hardiness.
This is certainly true, and of course an archer->cleric is generally not going to be as good a ranged combatant as a full archer. But that's not because of slings. That's because that's how dual-classing works in general. The dual is not made less viable by the restriction to slings.
I don't think archer to cleric is better than fighter to cleric, to be honest. You would dual at 7 or 13 anyway...and at 13 archer you get +4 bonus to ranged and spend all SoA hindered. With fighter/cleric and 5 pips in slings you get +2 thac0 and +3 dmg bonus instead plus 1/2 apr and are all set to go into melee if needed with the same devastating effect.
Plus druid spells are mostly meh to justify ranger kit for that alone.
@Arius: If you download the Tactics mod you can install the Generic Archer fighter kit, which will allow you to create an Archer/Mage, Archer/Thief, or Archer/Druid. It's identical to the Archer ranger kit, but since it's a fighter class, you have more dual-class options. However, you don't get ranger spells or stealth.
@Arius: If you download the Tactics mod you can install the Generic Archer fighter kit, which will allow you to create an Archer/Mage, Archer/Thief, or Archer/Druid. It's identical to the Archer ranger kit, but since it's a fighter class, you have more dual-class options. However, you don't get ranger spells or stealth.
There's something to that, I guess, but I feel like a lot of the charm would be lost without stealth.
@Arius: If you download the Tactics mod you can install the Generic Archer fighter kit, which will allow you to create an Archer/Mage, Archer/Thief, or Archer/Druid. It's identical to the Archer ranger kit, but since it's a fighter class, you have more dual-class options. However, you don't get ranger spells or stealth.
There's something to that, I guess, but I feel like a lot of the charm would be lost without stealth.
agreed on the stealth. nothing like a mage with the ability to sneak in and drop a web spell. then step out of range and let AoE magic artillery do some work.
What's the point of hiding in shadows for an archer?
If a caster is about to hit you with a spell, then walking out of range and hiding will disrupt it. Also, scouting is always useful to get the upper hand on an enemy before they know you're there.
Stalker is Rubbish, a Fighter/Thief will do anything he can much much Better.
Archer is Awesome. just one example way to play him would be Crossbows, in BG 1 you have the Crossbow of Speed which is equal to the APR of a shortbow. once you hit BG2 you can buy Firetooth+4 as soon as you scrounged together the 30ish k gold, removing the problem of having magical ammunition forever, slightly worse APR as with short bow of Geseng but you can have it from the get go and don't have to rush the Main story, yes even upgrade it to +5 in ToB.
and as for the Slight Problem of the enemy's Immune to Piercing/Missile ...you are still a Ranger with the Base THAC0 of a Fighter and 2 Spare ** you can spend between Mace/War Hammer/Flails and Club and 2 Free ** in Dual wield allowing you to Flail around wildly with some spare armament your other party members don't need.
and there are good Armors in game to bring down that AC (like shadow dragon armor) he wont be a tank but why would he have to be.
I think it's more of a playstyle question, than a real kit-strength question. Look, you will (and should) have more different NPCs in your group, so there will be always room for Thieving skills and your mainchar does not NEED to have them. (This, coming from an avid Thief player) Also - as most of the Thieving skills are "utility", there is a lot of NPCs that have the ability to open locks and disarm traps for you so you can focus on wreaking havoc. **
A Stalker is a very good mix of a Fighter with the Thieving ability in fight to backstab and stalk in shadows better. Played a Stalker and loved him. A bit different take on the whole "Fighter" class. Just regard them as scouts, spies and mage-killers. Damage-dealers as opposed to "tanks".
* and if you actually LIKE to open locks, look for traps, set traps and pickpocket - play a Thief kit.
Comments
Plus, for bonus points, you can name him David.
https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/29629/why-isnt-ranger-mage-a-possible-combination
Several reasons. Actually, it goes back to 1e AD&D. In first edition, Rangers got mage spells- I'm not sure why, but they did, at higher levels, along with Druid Spells. Paladins got Cleric spells. For the same reason there is no Paladin/Cleric Class Combo, there is/was no Ranger/Mage. Also, Ranger and Paladin were considered sub-classes. A Paladin could only be a Paladin- not Paladin multi classed with something else. Rangers, nearly the same. (These were mostly human-only classes anyhow, and thus, not able to be multi-classed, as humans can't be multi-classed. Druids could be half-elven (but could only achieve Level 8, and Halflings could get to level 6, but no higher, for Druid at least. And half-elves could be level-limited Rangers as well.) Likewise, the Druid/Ranger was not a valid choice as Rangers already got Druid spells. (Plus, a Druid is, like the Paladin, open mostly to humans due to human attitudes towards nature. Just as Paladins reflect a human understanding of fighting for their faith that nonhumans lacked. Even half-elves and Halflings could apparently only buy so far into those ideas. AND Rangers had to be good, and Druids could only be True Neutral, so these were not seen as compatible alignment-wise.) There was also in 1e AD&D, the Assassin class. Evil alignment only, but open to just about every race. Another human-only class was the Monk (Plus, it was very rare due to the necessary minimum stats. Same with Paladin. In a game where "roll 3d6, in order, for your stats" seemed to be the standard way to roll a character, qualifying for any of the sub-classes was insanely hard. I'd almost say "Nintendo Hard", if you know what I mean). The idea that elves could be Druids (or Rangers) came later.
So, what nixed the idea of Ranger/Mage? Overlap between the two classes already (Rangers already got some mage spells at higher levels). Lack of stats for most people to qualify for both classes at once, and when you get down to it, lack of sub-classes to multi class with another sub-class. The only sub-class that even got mentioned in the allowable multi-class list was Cleric/Ranger. No others. And then, only to half-elves, who were the only ones able to be both of those classes (And even so, they were level-limited in the Ranger class AND the Cleric class as well- only humans could have unlimited level advancement in any class (Thievery was the exception to the this general rule)).
It wasn't until 3e that all limits on level and multi-classing were dropped. (And yeah, I know, Level Limits were horrible. But it came out of E. Gary Gygax wanting a world where humans were supreme, and the other races could live much, much longer than humans. If the levels weren't limited and High Elves could live 2500 years where humans were limited to the high 70's to low 90's, what was to prevent elves, dwarves and so on, from continuing to accumulate experience and be so much better that the humans couldn't compete? I mean, someone who has had 90 years to practice archery and swordplay is going to be staggeringly better than one who has only had 5 or 10- much more than even a +1 to bows and swords can explain away. I'm not saying it was right, but it was meant to support the Tolkienesque subtext that Elves and Dwarves were the "Elder Races" whose time was passing and were being supplanted by humans. It was meant to give humans a leg up on the vastly longer-lived races and make "human" the most attractive race to play if you wanted to power game. I'm not saying it was necessarily a good idea- it was a mechanical way to back up the kind of race-based stories E.G.G. wanted to underlay his world. Later versions of AD&D/D&D had different assumptions about the fantasy worlds they were creating.)
But you can do the same thing kind of with a rogue or a fighter I believe. Dual classing that is.
You would dual at 7 or 13 anyway...and at 13 archer you get +4 bonus to ranged and spend all SoA hindered.
With fighter/cleric and 5 pips in slings you get +2 thac0 and +3 dmg bonus instead plus 1/2 apr and are all set to go into melee if needed with the same devastating effect.
Plus druid spells are mostly meh to justify ranger kit for that alone.
I'd make a solo archer. Not dual-assed.
Stalker is Rubbish, a Fighter/Thief will do anything he can much much Better.
Archer is Awesome.
just one example way to play him would be Crossbows, in BG 1 you have the Crossbow of Speed which is equal to the APR of a shortbow.
once you hit BG2 you can buy Firetooth+4 as soon as you scrounged together the 30ish k gold, removing the problem of having magical ammunition forever, slightly worse APR as with short bow of Geseng but you can have it from the get go and don't have to rush the Main story, yes even upgrade it to +5 in ToB.
and as for the Slight Problem of the enemy's Immune to Piercing/Missile ...you are still a Ranger with the Base THAC0 of a Fighter and 2 Spare ** you can spend between Mace/War Hammer/Flails and Club and 2 Free ** in Dual wield allowing you to Flail around wildly with some spare armament your other party members don't need.
and there are good Armors in game to bring down that AC (like shadow dragon armor) he wont be a tank but why would he have to be.
Look, you will (and should) have more different NPCs in your group, so there will be always room for Thieving skills and your mainchar does not NEED to have them. (This, coming from an avid Thief player) Also - as most of the Thieving skills are "utility", there is a lot of NPCs that have the ability to open locks and disarm traps for you so you can focus on wreaking havoc. **
A Stalker is a very good mix of a Fighter with the Thieving ability in fight to backstab and stalk in shadows better. Played a Stalker and loved him. A bit different take on the whole "Fighter" class.
Just regard them as scouts, spies and mage-killers. Damage-dealers as opposed to "tanks".
* and if you actually LIKE to open locks, look for traps, set traps and pickpocket - play a Thief kit.