Mage Dagger +2

[Lord Brass]

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^nd Ed AD&D ruleset.

[Dace De'Briago]

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

Suprised that they werent implemented

[Lord Brass]

Originally posted by Dace De'Briago: 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!

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 ]

[SirWillow]

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.

[Lord Brass]

Originally posted by SirWillow: 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.

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^rd 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 ]

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by SirWillow: 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.

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

[Lord Brass]

Originally posted by Morgeruat: 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^nd 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^rd 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 ]

[ZFR]

[quote]Originally posted by Morgeruat:

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