Dual Classed characters

Remove all ads!

I've never really understood dual classed characters in BG and IWD series (and maybe the others but ive never played them). My main confusion is this:

If you start with a dual or triple class, they advance in both classes and can use the skills of both classes.

However, if you dual class a character at anytime once the game has started, they can't used their original skills untill they advance in their new skill to the same standard of their first skill. And also, are unable to advance further in their original class.

I know it is part of the rules, but it doesn't make sense to not be able to continue using a skill that you have while learning a new skill.

 

True, it's not very logical. However, that's in 2e (D&D second edition). IWD2 uses 3e rules, and there you can use all the skills all the time. 3e is in all ways, much more logical than 2e.

For example: Derek is a paladin. He wants to be able to specialise in great swords, wich only a fighter can. In 2e, he would be out of luck. In 3e, he can take fighter levels, and then continue taking paladin levels. IMHO 3e is far better than 2e. Try it, I can almost guarantee (sp?) you'll like it!

Hope that helped!

 

I think you are running into confusion between dual-classed and multi-classed characters.

Non-humans can multi-class, where they advance in 2 or more classes at once, but humans get to dual-class, where you start as one class then switch to another class.

If you dual-class, you cannot use the skills from your original class until your new class is one level higher than your original class. If you are multi-classed (non-human), you can use all skills from all your classes at any time, barring things like casting arcane spells while wearing armor and such.

3e rules do away with 2e's dual-classing and multi-classing, but let any race switch between any classes any time they level up.

Hope that helps.

 

That makes more sense. But still, if i was a fighter and dual-classed to a thief, i would still expect that through the course of my life, i would learn as both a fighter and a thief and thus, continue to gain experience in both areas.

Not to worry. I didn't realise that to dual was to effectively change class. So rather that dual-classing at any point, what about being able to become multi-classed at any point? Or is that what you were referring to when comparing to 3e rules?

 

I think it is to signify how humans will pursue something with a single mindedness until they succeed. It also may be there so that humans can have something special about them, and game ballance of course

 

I'm going to chalk a lot of it up to play balance, rather than any kind of logic.

Far from logic. But, obviously, good for play balance.

 

Here's another thing regarding the rules that confuses me. I didnt think it worth starting a new thread for it even though it doesnt directly have much to do with dual classing.

With specialist mages, why are they able to use some spells from other specialisms but not others. For instance, my necromancer in iwd could write one spell from a different class (might have been abjurer spell) but couldnt write another abjurer scroll that i found. It seems that if you choose to be a necromancer, you should only be able to use those spells. Otherwise, be a normal mage or a priest.

 

That's what specialist mages do - they specialize in a certain type of spells.

They get the advantage of memorizing more spells than a regular mage. To offset or balance this advantage, they cannot cast (memorize, scribe, cast from a scroll) a spell of one opposing spell type. (The class of spells in opposition are listed in manuals).

You may want to double check that the first spell scribed is not in the same spell category as the second spell. If it really is, then I'm confused too.

[ January 09, 2003, 01:03: Message edited by: Blog ]

 

Precisely what annoys me in the system. Specialized mages get 1 more spell memorized per level, and can't use spells of the opposing school instead. This just plain sucks. Because in the end, a specialist "conjurer" let us say, is no better than a common one. Save the fact that the common one can cast 1 spell less and a whole lot more spells overall to choose from.

In NWN this was at least changed a bit. IIRC, 2:nd E D&D PnP had a lot more to specialists than this. At least the expansion sets. Someone specialized in summoning otherworldly creatures should be able to summon more, more powerful, and different creatures than common mages. Also, they should be able to manage better control over such beings and their information and lore would grant them better chances battling against other summoned beings.

 

Let me try this analogy here. Lets say you play a musical instrument. There are three basic groups of instruments; brass, woodwind and percussion. In most cases you pick one group. If you play a brass instrument, you mostly stick to brass instruments. If you try to play a woodwind, you can really mess up you ambachure (sp? its the way you hold your lips to play the instrument.) Brass players "pucker" their lips, while woodwinds curl thier lips over their teeth. So they are kind of like opposing schools of magic.
Now you can also dual class by playing different instruments. Say you play a bassoon or oboe, well it doesn't work to well if you have to march in a parade, so you "dual class" to saxaphone. While you are playing a saxaphone, you can't go back to playing the oboe. You can also dual class to percussion from either brass or woodwind, but while you are playing a drum, you can't play a wind instrument.

 

Yeah, maybe. But you still know about your other instrument.

Blog: They were definitely the same school's spell. Which is why i quadruple-checked, coz i too was somewhat confused.