I have a Mage/Cleric who is not allowed to use the Mage Dagger +2. She's a half-elf, the dagger is grayed-out, with or without armour. The specs for the dagger clearly say that multi-class is okay, what am I missing here?

clerics cannot use daggers.....

Welcome marb! If you're not too familiar with the D&D ruleset then some confusion can occur. The dual/multi-classes have additional restrictions placed on them which may not be obvious at first glance. The Fighter/Druid for example is allowed to wear any armour, but can (still) only use those weapons allowable by their religion. You'll find that the restrictions make a certain sense after awhile.

This has both positive and negative sides to it. No, your mage/cleric cannot use daggers. BUT he/she may use maces, hammers, flails, and such, and may use a shield. You could armor them, too, but while armored he/she/it/that may not use their mage spells. But that's not too important. My mage has an AC of -9. You could probably get even lower than that with a nice spiffy shield.

Yeah, what ^^ said. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I'm curious though Wumpspawner, what are you using to get your mage to a -9 AC? Best I've managed on my mage before spell and song buffs is a -6.

Possibly a number of things.

1. High Dex stat
2. Sheild +4 AC Max
3. Helmet +1 or +2 AC
4. decent Mage robe AC 5, or bracers possible that he as found elvish armor in the hand with even better AC and mage/clerics can still cast spells
5. Some type of cloak +1 or +2 AC

Dexterity of 19, Bracers of Defense A.C. 6, Cloak of Scintillating Colors, Cyclocone, Robe of Enfusing, and a Ring of Greater Resistance. Got to protect the artillery, you know.

Thanks to all for the replies to my question.
Since I am not familiar with all the D&D rules, I was wondering why I can't have a Mage/Druid character? Do they contradict each other?

Valid multiclass combinations are:

DWARF
Fighter/Thief
Fighter/Cleric

ELF
Fighter/Mage
Fighter/Thief
Mage/Thief

GNOME
Fighter/Cleric
Fighter/Illusionist
Fighter/Thief
Cleric/Illusionist
Cleric/Thief
Illusionist/Thief

HALFLING
Fighter/Theif

Half-elf (here it comes...)
Fighter/Cleric*
Fighter/Thief
Fighter/Mage
Cleric*/Ranger
Cleric*/Mage
Thief/Mage
Fighter/Mage/Cleric
Fighter/Mage/Theof

* or DRUID

So we can have druid multiclasses. Though why anyone would want to be a tree loving hippy escapes me [img]smile.gif[/img]

is this from the bg2 manual?
if yes then afaik this is wrong

the only multiclass for druid is fighter druid....

no cleric druid or mage druid...

You're right ZFR, the only valid combination is Fighter/Druid. I think that the option to change Cleric to Druid is an unofficial PnP rule that was never implemented in the IE version. Possibly from the 2<font size="1">^nd</font> Ed AD&D ruleset.

Yeah, I grabbed those 'valid' class combinations from the AD&D 2nd Ed manual.

Suprised that they werent implemented :(

Not really Dace. Think about it...soooo pOwer-ful! :D

I'm surprised I remembered all of that optional PnP rules malarkey. I've never really played with much outside the four traditional rôles for character classes. Early druids weren't really well implemented as far as I could see. Clerics only seemed to gain any new benefits with entirely new pantheons, or new demons/devils and completely new planes of Hell, Pandemonium etc. Mages on the other hand, got a new spell every .00003 of a second. Totally unnecessary.

Edit: The whole race/class system was rubbish, so why be surprised by such a trivial thing like that.

[ 01-27-2003, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Lord Brass ]

There's actually a very simple reason why you can never have a Ranger/ Druid- alignments!! Rangers must be of good alignment. Druids must be true neutral (which means they can't be good). Thus a character can not be both.

As for other combinations, got me on that one.

Quite right Sir Willow. Trouble is, it reflects the fact that early PnP games went for diversity over logic. Those two classes aren't necessarily so diametrically opposed as to be mutually exclusive. 3^{<font size="1">rd</font>} Ed. goes some way to remove this unfathomable display of "logic". They should have adopted something like Palladium's take on alignment if the concept was to be kept at all.

Edit: and there are those that say that the system should have been scrapped entirely. Why hold on to an archaic rules mechanism.

[ 01-28-2003, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Lord Brass ]

a couple reasons why a mage/druid doesn't make sense, rare spell components, a druid, even a druid mage would view it as a frivolous waste to chop down a treant for paper to write scrolls on, or harvest pixie wings for a flight spell, not to mention living in a natural setting (ie treehouse, cave, or other druidy place is not condusive to keeping spellbooks in superb conditions, something most mages would seriously frown on)

as for ranger druids, they are optionally allowed in the Forgotten Realms setting, IIRC the alignment must be Neutral Good

Was that the original hardback book for 2^{<font size="1">nd</font>} Ed version of AD&D? It's a veeeery long time since I've looked at that, but I know there were some variations involved. Wasn't that the original source of 'Agannazar's Scorcher' too?

Edit: I skimmed through the new Forgotten Realms book for 3^{<font size="1">rd</font>} Ed D&D. Couldn't find one single mention of Baldur's Gate in it. There was a section on Amn though. Wonder what that's all about...

[ 01-28-2003, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: Lord Brass ]

[quote]Originally posted by Morgeruat:

Quote:

Originally posted by SirWillow: a couple reasons why a mage/druid doesn't make sense, rare spell components, a druid, even a druid mage would view it as a frivolous waste to chop down a treant for paper to write scrolls on, or harvest pixie wings for a flight spell, not to mention living in a natural setting (ie treehouse, cave, or other druidy place is not condusive to keeping spellbooks in superb conditions, something most mages would seriously frown on)

i dont want to go deep into an argument here but i would disaagree

if we apply your logic everywhere, then no multiclass would make sense....
how can we have a fighter mage, afighter would want to practice his fighting more while mage would want to be in his laboratory studying the arcane... how can we have a cleric ranger? a cleric would want to spend time in temple praying to his god while ranger would want to spend time in the woods...

i think all multiclass shoul;d be allowed... why cant we have a paladin mage? someone striving for goodness at the same time studying magic..... or a bard/ranger? or cleric/druid?

i think the only classes not allowed to multi should be those whose main purpose contradict... eg paladin/thief