Skip to content

Which BG2 class for a spellsword?

MoonheartMoonheart Member Posts: 520
The spellsword is a class from D&D 3.5 which is kind of character who use arcane magic to empower his martial abilities, he does stay at distance, throwing spells at the ennemies, but run into the melee with his weapon, casting spells only to make himself more deadly with it

I wish to reproduce this kind of character in BG 2 by only making him learn buff spells or spell with "range: touch", however from some other reasons, I cannit use the basic kensai/berzerker duale to a mage everyone would probably point me at:
- The character cannot be dual classed
- The character must have accès to the 9th level spells before the end of the game, with no xp cap remover

Which leave me only three possibilities:
- Figther/Mage: Best Taco, Best APR
- Mage/Cleric: Lots more buffs combos available, like BBOD + Righteous Magic
- Mage/Thief: Abuse Mislead and backstab everyone

Which one would think to be the best one of the tree for this need?
Post edited by Moonheart on

Comments

  • magisenseimagisensei Member Posts: 316
    Aren't spellswords all elves? So the choice has to be fighter/mage as the only choice that can cast spells.

    But I think there is a mod that offers this kit.
  • GallengerGallenger Member Posts: 400
    I'd say fighter/mage is probably the closest mainly because your fighter skills will continue to level up since you don't want to dual class. I was always paranoid about how a fighter/mage would progress through the game, but on the whole it's not so bad you're never more than just a tiny bit behind single-class folks and the combinations you can pull off are pretty silly.
  • JarrakulJarrakul Member Posts: 2,029
    The closest equivalent to the spellsword is unquestionably a fighter/mage, in my opinion. It's also probably the most powerful choice. It's just hard to argue with Mirror Image, Stoneskin, Protection from Magic Weapons, and Improved Haste. They can also wear the Robe of Vecna, which is really good for a close-combat spellcaster. Fighter/cleric doesn't seem to meet your requirements, since they never get 9th level spells or anything particularly close to them in power (counterpoint: energy blades and implosion). Fighter/thief doesn't get any spellcasting until they pick up Use Any Item, so you'd spend most of the game not playing the character you wanted to play.
  • rapsam2003rapsam2003 Member Posts: 1,636
    edited June 2016
    F/M err day, all day. Seriously, I only ever play Fighter/Mage. It's such an awesome combo in the BG series.
  • MoonheartMoonheart Member Posts: 520
    edited June 2016
    Oop! I made a huge lapsus... I meant to say "Mage/Cleric" and "Mage/Thief" and not "Fighter/Cleric" and "Fighter/Thief"
    Naturaly Fighter/Thief and Fighter/Cleric can't be spellswords, who are arcane magic users!
    It's weird no one noticed when I talked about BBoD or Mislead ^^

    I edited my first post to fix this
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    If you don't want to dual class, I would say multi F/M is basically the only choice.
  • CrimefighterCrimefighter Member Posts: 9
    F/M is pretty much the only option unless you lift your 9th level spell casting restriction, in which case you could go for a Blade.
  • rapsam2003rapsam2003 Member Posts: 1,636

    F/M is pretty much the only option unless you lift your 9th level spell casting restriction, in which case you could go for a Blade.

    Blades are trying to do so many different things in 2E that they end up as master of none. They're not good at melee combat (compared to fighters), they're not good at magic (compared to mages), they're not good at thieving skills (compared to thieves), bard songs suck, and they just end up mediocre at everything. Don't play a blade if you want a spellsword feel.
  • MoonheartMoonheart Member Posts: 520
    Why F/M would be better than a M/C ?
  • rapsam2003rapsam2003 Member Posts: 1,636
    And a fighter/mage does all of what you mentioned better, @Jarrakul.
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235

    And a fighter/mage does all of what you mentioned better, @Jarrakul.

    No, not really. You're just more specialized in a couple areas, where a Blade has a better spread. The Blades raw utility give him more power in some areas.
  • rapsam2003rapsam2003 Member Posts: 1,636
    edited June 2016

    No, not really. You're just more specialized in a couple areas, where a Blade has a better spread. The Blades raw utility give him more power in some areas.

    The way bards work in 2E, that spread is what makes them weak. Compare Fighter/Mage side by side with the Blade kit. Fighter/Mage wins every time.
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    ^ This, I can't stress enough that utility does NOT equal weakness.
  • rapsam2003rapsam2003 Member Posts: 1,636
    edited June 2016
    Jarrakul said:

    The fighter/mage and the blade are very similar classes, but they're not identical. The fighter/mage gets more spells and deals more physical damage than the blade, but has fewer hit points, lower caster level, and a worse armor class. All in all, the fighter/mage is usually the better physical damage dealer, while the blade is the better tank. The blade is also probably the better magical damage dealer, although that's not as straightforward.

    So no, the fighter/mage doesn't do everything the blade does better. The blade has some marked advantages that can make it stronger depending on what you want the character to do.

    This thread is about what class fits the best spellsword. A blade is a bad spellsword. That's what I'm stating in context of the question asked. Utility doesn't change that fact.
  • WolfieBRWolfieBR Member Posts: 4
    If you lift the "must cast 9th level spells restriction" (and there is no reason not to lift it), FMT and FCM become real nice options.

    A FMT is not a toned-down F/M - but a F/T improved by magic.

    A FMC is a Fighter that uses cleric spells to buff ofensively and mage spells to buff defensively (including protecting those precious cleric buffs).

  • AnonymousHeroAnonymousHero Member Posts: 98

    F/M is pretty much the only option unless you lift your 9th level spell casting restriction, in which case you could go for a Blade.

    Blades are trying to do so many different things in 2E that they end up as master of none. They're not good at melee combat (compared to fighters), they're not good at magic (compared to mages), they're not good at thieving skills (compared to thieves), bard songs suck, and they just end up mediocre at everything. Don't play a blade if you want a spellsword feel.
    This is nonsense. Blades are second only to F/M in melee[1], assuming solo (otherwise just have a mage cast IH on a Barbarian/Berserker). Any one-hander in main hand (take your pick), Belm/Scarlet Ninja-to in off-hand, Offensive Spin + GoWE (optional) + IH => Win. Before enemies need +4 you can even go Ninja-to (main) + Belm (off) for even more APR. That plus huge defense (even from mages via Spell Deflection + Imp. Invis + SI) and dispelling ability only rivaled by high-level clerics and Inquisitors => moar win.

    [1] Arguably perhaps even better due to higher dispelling power in certain circumstances. I'm also assuming solo, otherwise you just need basically a Berserker/Barbarian with IH cast on them.
  • AnonymousHeroAnonymousHero Member Posts: 98
    edited August 2016
    Spellsword: For my money it's the K/M multiclass assuming you're up for using EEKeeper. I'm not sure if it works with EE + EEKeeper (because I haven't tried), but in the old game it was a simple matter to get a K/M:
    1. Create a F/M
    2. Save
    3. Load game into ShadowKeeper/EEKeeper
    4. Change kit to Kensai
    5. Add an "Innate" spell for the x'th level Kai.
    6. Copy a couple(?) of "Affects" from a pure Kensai character.
    Enjoy!

    (Of course this character is even more overpowered than a F/M, so you may want to give yourself some intentional handicaps such as "only bladed weapons" or "only swords" or similar. I'm not sure you can get rid of the melee bonus damage, but if you could then that might be a way of restricting the character to be weaker than F/M in a meaningful way.)
    Post edited by AnonymousHero on
  • BelgarathMTHBelgarathMTH Member Posts: 5,653
    Don't forget any combination of cleric can't use swords. I assume using a sword is pretty important to the idea of a "spellsword", right?
  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 5,870
    Alternatively, if you're open for mods, Tome and Blood: More Options for Wizards and Sorcerers has an arcane melee class called Magus. It's basically an Battlemage which can gradually cast arcane spells while wearing heavy armour:

    MAGUS: A student of both arcane knowledge and martial prowess, a Magus blends together spell and
    steel to devastating effect. The most defining quality of a magus is their ability to cast complicated
    arcane spells while wearing even the heaviest armors, an ability that has allowed to them to surprise
    many a foe expecting a purely physical fight. Magi are perfectionists, and they welcome any opportunity
    to hone their powerful abilities further.
    • May become specialized (++) in any melee weapon.
    • May become proficient (+) in any ranged weapon.
    • May become specialized (++) in Two-Handed and Single Weapon styles.
    • May not use shields.
    • May wear helmets.
    • May wear any armor.
    • May cast arcane spells.
    • Gains the warrior bonus Attacks per Round from specialization and at 7th and 13th.
    • May cast spells while wearing Leather or Studded Leather armor
    • At 5th, may also cast spells while wearing Hide, Chain or Scale armor.
    • At 15th, may also cast spells while wearing Splint, Plate or Full Plate armor.
    • May cast one fewer spell per level (compared to Sorcerer).
    • Has a permanent -2 casting speed penalty.
    • Hit Die: d8

Sign In or Register to comment.