Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What color is grass?:
What is the seventh word in this sentence?:
What is five minus two (use the full word)?:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Reverendratbastard
« on: November 01, 2004, 04:26:05 PM »

 as far as 2e goes, i think they figured out how far was too far with the multi-class options available in the complete bard's handbook.
Posted by: Kish
« on: November 01, 2004, 04:02:28 PM »

You can't dual-class a ranger to a druid or the other way around in BG.  Try it and see.
Posted by: nurgles_herald
« on: November 01, 2004, 03:52:20 PM »

All that heirarchy stuff makes me think that the druid class would be rigidly lawful.  The 2nd edition Druid had little, if anything, to do with the pagan druids of olde.  That doesn't change the fact that druids are still really cool.  Btw, if my initial question was a bit hazy, I'm asking if a Druid can, through virtue, become good and still be a Druid?  It appears that SimDing0 has answered that question, though I'm not entirely sure.  If that's so, then a Druid/Ranger dual-class thing is actually doable.  Seems kinda broken to me, but eh.  Whatever.
Posted by: Reverendratbastard
« on: October 12, 2004, 04:56:05 PM »


it seems to me that the neutrality aspect applies more to the law/chaos scale than the good/evil one, if that makes any sense.

  true... although it did bug me that (dredging up the dinosaur) druids had such a strict hierarchy, only one great druid and all that, with the only real class comparison being the uberlawful monk...  and now, thinking about it for a few seconds [miraculous!], i suppose that regimentation is probably balanced by the idea that the great druid doesn't issue commands all over the place and all the underdruids are pretty much free to balance at will...
  well, then there was the assassin (wisely eliminated as a class - or rather, everyone who can wield lethal weapons should have the ability to kill quickly, not an "instant death %"...), but there's no need to get into that because BHAAL IS DEAD...  wait...
Posted by: SimDing0
« on: October 12, 2004, 04:12:57 PM »

A druid who turns neutral good or neutral evil is still a druid. However much they both waffle on about balance, it seems to me that Jaheira is good, Faldorn is evil, and so on. As far as druids are concerned, it seems to me that the neutrality aspect applies more to the law/chaos scale than the good/evil one, if that makes any sense.

And yes, the 2e alignment restrictions are generally a load of rubbish.
Posted by: Reverendratbastard
« on: October 12, 2004, 02:13:24 PM »


  so, if a druid under the influences of Virtuepak becomes good (or evil), what, do they become a cleric?

  always thought, since alignment [arguably] is outside the purview of the physical world, that, for example, shadow druids have necessarily evil tendencies (if not, individually, full alignment shifts) when they decide to massacre people who might not know any better (e.g. frontier settlers, SUV enthusiasts...) but this just can't be an issue in 2e, even though neutral good was added (admittedly, in the more-than-line-toeing unearthed arcana) in 1e.  and if they're all about balance, only adding neutral good as an option is obviously silly.  i think 'only neutral alignmentS' is entirely feasible - the loose communication between druid sects being the way of ensuring a balance of that spectrum.  the CN camps have more shapeshifters, the LN more totemics, the NE more avengers, study of anti-personnel tactics [contagion, dolorous decay, poison and so on], NG play more with faeries...
  not that i'm against the massacre of suv enthusiasts.

  frankly, everybody needs to get with the 3e program. (except for the 'bards can't be lawful' bit; i'm partial to the herald from the 2e bard's handbook in that respect.  and i'm still wrapping my head around rangers having a choice of ANY alignment... but that whole tradition-bound thing, i guess... oh no, d&d's not based on tolkien! how could you suggest such a thing?  then we'd lose royalties!!!  now, about this RANGER with damage bonuses against EVIL HUMANOIDS and preternatural TRACKING skills and... o well, at least they got nerfed and less specialized)
  if it hadn't been for folks being willing to question and rewrite/publish 'what's allowed' we'd still have dwarves that couldn't get farther than 9th level in fighter, and elves 11th level in 'magic-user' [what a smooth name].  and a cleric of WAR AND BATTLE not being able to use edged weapons... please.  at least forgotten realms 2e wised up a >bit< with specialty priests.
Posted by: fallen demon
« on: September 12, 2004, 06:54:43 PM »

It's impossible alignment-wise.  I thought both could be ng
Posted by: Andyr
« on: August 07, 2004, 01:44:53 AM »

Yes.
Posted by: Mongoose87
« on: August 06, 2004, 09:23:10 PM »

Engine limitations woud prevents this from happening wouldn't they?  Except for customised kits simulating it?
Posted by: NiGHTMARE
« on: August 06, 2004, 11:37:12 AM »

As Kish already mentioned, the Player's Handbook allows for various multi- and dual-class ranger and druid combinations - namely the cleric/ranger, fighter/druid, druid/mage and fighter/mage/druid - but not the druid/ranger. BTW the Druid's Handbook also allows for druid/bard and druid/thief, and judging from these the fighter/thief/druid could be considered a valid (if exceptionally rare - maybe one in the entire world) combination as well.

While druid/rangers dual-class characters aren't possible, half-elven ranger/druid multi-class characters are allowed, albeit under very specific circumstances:

Quote
First, there must be a nature deity of good alignment whose specialty priests are druidic. Second, the priesthood must have an allied group of rangers. Given these conditions, a half-elf ranger/druid character may be possible.

In the Forgotten Realms, Mielliki (and her servant, Gwaeron Windstrom) fits these criteria. A half-elven druid/ranger worshipper of Mielliki is made especially appropriate when you consider Mielliki is said to be the daughter of Silvanus and Hanali Celanil, which would make her the one-and-only half-elven deity.
Posted by: Kish
« on: August 06, 2004, 10:31:57 AM »

The 2ed PHB adds "(or Druid)" to every reference to dual-classing a cleric, in the passage on dual-classing.  However, it also has a table which shows valid dual-classes.  This table includes fighter/druid, includes ranger/cleric, and conspicuously doesn't include ranger/druid.
Posted by: nurgles_herald
« on: August 06, 2004, 07:31:38 AM »

No, in the Player's Handbook it pretty much exclusively states that Ranger-Druid is a valid dual class combination despite the fact that it's impossible.  I'm almost sure that the same thing would show up somewhere in BG2, as it is based off of 2nd ed.  Or it might've been one of those things they just forgot to proofread.
Posted by: Mongoose87
« on: August 05, 2004, 06:20:45 PM »

You're probably thinking of the ranger-cleric, which has access to many spells druids use.  Similar to a druid ranger, but not quite.
Posted by: Kish
« on: August 05, 2004, 03:57:37 PM »

In BG2, as well as PnP 2nd Edition AD&D, a Druid can dual class into a Ranger and vice versa.
No, in BG2 every dual-class combination must be a valid multi-class combination.  The game makes no allowances for the possibility of a ranger/druid, so it just won't work.
Posted by: nurgles_herald
« on: August 05, 2004, 03:36:28 PM »

In BG2, as well as PnP 2nd Edition AD&D, a Druid can dual class into a Ranger and vice versa. This is, of course, impossible, as they have conflicting alignment requirements. However, virtue raises an issue in my mind: can you create a true neutral druid, make them become good through doing good deeds and then dual to ranger? In otherwords, can you "fall" when using virtue and being a druid?  Of course, it is prefferable to keep all druidic powers.....