I've been wondering, is there ever any point where a multi-class is preferable to a dual-class? DCed characters seem to be ideal, because aside from a brief (but non-trivial) hit in power during the transition phase, they seem better in every way. Take a few levels as a fighter or a thief before starting on your trek as a mage or cleric and you'll be good enough in your first class while being incredibly superior to MCs in your second class. Heck, a lot of parties seem to be pure human fighters, each one taking a few levels before DCing over to whatever they're actually going to be, so that even the mages have some HP and a decent THAC0 under their belts.

I used the tweak pack to allow MCed fighters to still reach GM (a restriction that's always puzzled me before), and that helps a lot. Now it's actually a choice, as you'd have to allow your DCed fighter to get to lvl 9 before he'd have equal proficiency, something that's not all that attractive.

Also I suppose there are the race benefits. To me the best would be the Elf with +1 to longswords and longbows and 19 DEX. Half-Orc can be nice too. But those pros don't seem to outweigh the cons. The only way I could see it is with a Mage/Cleric, and even then, Aerie's a bit underwhelming ;)


Also, as an aside, thinking about this made me wonder: Is there any benefit whatsoever to the Gnome's 19 INT?

I multi-classed a fighter-mage on my first playthrough - the high-level spells combined with fighter HLAs can be a great combo -> time-stop + greater-whirlwind = dead things. (though even just stoneskin+greater-whirlwind makes for a good melee).

I can see where dual would be better for many combos as you wouldn't want all the HLAs.
(right now I've got a dualled fighter->assassin (shadow-keeper to get the kit in) and only took the fighter levels (3 of them) for the restricitons, weapon-proficiencies and the initial thac0 boost) (starting from BG1 on BGT run-through).

Besides an unimportant lore effect 19 int allows the mage to scribe an unlimited number of spells per level instead of only 18. If you play core rules it affects success chance at scribing scrolls.

in a full party it's almost always better to have pure or dualclassed instead of multiclassed casters since you'll want everyone to be good at this role, in small parties without enough characters to specialize in everything multiclasses become more valuable, casting levels are capped at 20 which even multiclasses can reach when they level faster.

Thieves are best multiclassed, if you dual early from fighter you won't get that much combat power and if you dual early from thief you won't get the thief benefits gained and improved with levels. Setting traps or backstabbing with Nalia doesn't work well for example.

As this is a forum for the Baldur's Gate series, not just Baldur's Gate II, the first thing I want to mention in favor of multi-classes is, if you play a multi-class character in BG1 or Tutu, they are mostly only one level behind single-class characters, have both of their class skills available for the whole time. And if you want to dual at a higher level in Baldur's Gate I, it's a long wait for having your first class' skills back.

In Baldur's Gate II, dualing becomes a more viable option as you get the first 7-9 levels for free, depending on starting class. A long part of the wait is already over as your character already advanced through most of the starting levels in the Swordcoast, before waking up in Irenicus' Dungeon.

An advantage of multi-class characters in Baldur's Gate II is they keep advancing in their first class. This means, as mentioned, HLA's for both classes, but also, for example, Thac0 that keeps advancing at a higher pace for multi Fighter/Mages then they do for dual Fighter>Mages.

If you play the whole trilogy with the same character and decide to dual-class, you either play 2 kind of characters if you dual late (9 or higher), playing the first game with a different class than the second) or you dual early, but then the advantage of the first class in BG2 would mostly be a wider range of proficiencies and armour allowances, as there's few advancement in skills of the first class, compared to the high levels of the second class in BG2.

So much depends on if you just play BG2, just play BG1 or take your character through the whole saga.

Also much depends, as mentioned above, on the combination of classes you want to use.

There's a very wide range of class combinations. Just some I'm familiar with:

The multi ranger/cleric is a powerfull combo, even in the end-chapters of SOA. Good Thac0, good buffs, reasonable level of both cleric and druid spells. And a Ranger dualed to cleric is not an option if you want to play by the book. If you tweak the rules, allowing dual-classed Rangers, at least Thac0 will be a disadvantage of dual-classed Ranger>Clerics.

I'm familiar with both the fighter-mage and fighter>mage.
The fighter-mage is basically a fighter that makes use of arcane spells to improve his protections, using his spells for buffing himself, much like a Blade does, though with a different advancement curve.
The fighter dualed to mage is mostly a mage that has better hitpoints, Thac0, can use all weapons. But you will use him much more like a mage that is less vulnerable if he takes damage, as there's a wider pool of hit points. In the beginning, he can be played like a fighter-mage, but (I'm not very advanced yet with my fighter>mage but this is my projection) in the end he will be mostly casting spells, hardly fighting at all.

The thief/mage finally, like Jan for instance, will become a better thief as the game advances (and there's enough thief points to spend throughout the levels to make multi-class a more prefarable option then single class, taking another class 'for free' on the ride and still being skilled enough in stealth, locks etc.). A thief>mage for instance, like Imoen, will have to pick some skills to become good in and leave the rest at unusable low levels (Imoen is horrible at stealth, for instance, has to rely on invisibilty potions or spells for that) or rely on potions of master thievery, perception and items a lot. Finally the Thief dualed to something else doesn't become better at backstabbling, the multi does.

As to dualing to thief, your backstab does get better, but if you advance from a spellcasting class, you'll never be able to cast high level spells. Fighter is the most viable option. But then, there's possible some advantages to mention to fighter/thieves, but my post is long enough by now.

I prefer multiclasses over dual classes in all but some cases of fighter/mage (kensai9/mage or berserker 9/mage).

1) there won't be any downtime where your first class is inactive
2) you won't have to plan ahead for the dual classing point
3) you'll get the high level abilities of both classes

First of all, a fighter/thief multiclass is just much better than a pure thief, since you'll get more than enough skill points anyway and you'll be an efficient fighter as well.

I think the mage/cleric multiclass is the most powerful build there is in the game, as it allows you to get access to almost all the spells (minus druidic spells), and you can combine them in contingencies and spell triggers etc. Even better is that if you pick a gnome you'll be a cleric/illusionist, meaning you'll get 1 more spell slot for mage spells and improved saving throws (which you won't need, but it's nice). Plus you can wear a shield, a pure mage or sorcerer can't. The downsides are that you won't be able to cast as high level spells as a pure class character would, and your effective spell level won't be as high.

Ranger/cleric and fighter/cleric are also superior to pure clerics in my opinion, since you won't be missing out on a lot of spells compared to a pure cleric.

Heck, I'd consider even a thief/cleric, while being kinky, to be a better party member than a pure cleric. Can fulfill two roles quite efficiently, and if you can stand buffing him with those priest spells, can do some pretty mean backstabbing as well.

There are however some nice builds you can try out with dual classing, mainly cause you can pick a kit for the 1st class. Such as kensai or wizard slayer to thief, since with the thief's HLA use any item you will essentially get rid of the downsides of both kensai and wizard slayer. But I really hate the downtime of not being able to use your first class as you level up the 2nd, and if you don't dual at the "standard" 9th level, the next reasonable level to dual is level 13, and then it will take a considerable time to level up your 2nd class to lvl 14. Some people dual even later than that, but I really don't see the point of having your char be "ready" at the end of TOB, when the game is basically over. Unless you're soloing, of course.

Back before BG2 was out, it was a pretty common dual class to start as a fighter and go for about level 3 and then dual to mage.

So in a nutshell: multiclasses are simpler and can be more powerful than dual classes, and if you want to dual class, you need to plan it out. You cannot use kits when you multiclass.

Oh, and gnome multiclass mages are nice. Go Jan go!

Wow, so much has been said already... but here I go anyway!

I concur with kmonster on just about everything he said. Most of the time I start my clerics off as rangers, my mages as fighters, and multiclass my thieves. Multiclassing retards a caster's spell progression and to me is only worth it if that characters main role is not as a caster. Such as including Jan in the party as your main thief. My only exception to this being Cleric/Mages, because the combination of spells is intriguing. It also allows me a secondary cleric and a secondary mage in a single person. Again, it may be preferable to go Cleric/Illusionist for the extra spell slot.

I also liked what DubConqueror said pertaining to the way a multiclassed Fighter/Mage would function VS. a dualclassed Fighter>Mage. It rings true. I put my dualclassed Berserker>Mage in the back w/ throwing weapons and a shield and use her mostly as a straight mage. Dub is wrong about not being able to dual Ranger>Clerics, there is no need for tweaking. Thac0 is not a major issue for them either, since Clerics have Thac0 second only to the warrior classes and (if you're like me) that Ranger>Cleric is getting Crom and its massive strength bonuses. Even without Ranger HLA's a Ranger>Cleric is a monster.

I think it's interesting that no one mentioned Fighter/Mage/Thieves. Most see them as casters too weak to be worth it. I prefer to think of them as SUPER versatile thieves. Though in a 6-man party it may be better to just go with a Fighter/Thief. In an evil party a Half-orc Fighter/Thief makes a nice replacement for a Paladin as wielder of the Holy Avenger. I sometimes toy with the idea of dualing Mr. S to a thief and handing it off to him, send Keldy back to his wife and kids. He's already got grandmastery in 2H swords!

I will certainly agree that MC is better than DC in BG1. I'm sure a lot of players have DCed Imoen over to a Mage at lvl 7 to end up with the "canon" version of her, but unless you grind that can be tough to pull off pre-Chapter 7, and who likes grinding?

As pointed out, rangers CAN DC to clerics (perhaps not in BG1, I only run Tutu), and this seems preferable. Get them up a couple of levels to give them a decent THAC0 and profs (take advantage of that nice bonus to dual-wielding if you're BG2 or Tutu) and then dual over to Cleric. The Ranger can only get up to level 3 Druid spells, and frankly level 1 is mediocre, level 2 is complete crap (Goodberry? Seriously?) and level 3 is situational at best (Call Lightning is amazing... on the rare occasion that you're outside).

This isn't a knock against MCs, by the way. I use it far more than I use DC, and in my current game of IWD I've got a Cleric/Ranger who's one of the most powerful members of the party, and an Illusionist/Thief who's one of the most useful. But I feel like both fighters and thieves will have usually gotten as much XP as they need by level 10, whereas mages and clerics need to keep levelling up to get more and more spell slots of that high-level goodness. In other words, all classes have a point where additional level gains are negligible, but with fighters and thieves that comes much, much earlier, meaning that MCed characters are going to reach a point where half of their XP is being syphoned into an area which isn't that useful to them.

Case in point - I played a Fighter/Mage and he was still only casting level 6 spells by TOB :S

TOB does make MCs a bit more viable thanks to HLAs, especially with thieves. Since SOA seems to be designed around the assumption that you've got Nalia or Imoen, most locks and nearly all traps can be dealt with by a fairly low-level thief, so you could dump your points into the two stealth categories and call it a day. TOB now makes setting traps a priority skill too.

Like I said, if I want two roles on one character I mostly go for MCs over DCs, but if I were a power-gamer, I would totally do all DC.

I would agree about MC in BG1, I forgot to give Dub credit on that point.

Ranger>Clerics get access to ALL druid spells, except the HLA Elemental Transformations. Perhaps this is an oversight, but they never fixed it. So you totally have access to Iron Skins and Plague of Insects and whatnot.

Another thing I forgot to point out (which everyone is already aware of I'm certain) is that DC casters not only gets you more spell slots, but allows you to cast many spells at greater strength and/or for longer durations. At level 20 Righteous Magic is like a Kai that lasts 2 minutes! And improves STR and HP.

Huh. Just tried this out, and it was true. It's also true for Ranger/Clerics. What was also interesting is that the Ranger/Cleric can't lose their class. I went on a rampage butchering the town and even at 1 Rep, no Fallen Ranger status, still good to go. Not sure if Ranger>Cleric works the same way but I assume it does.

I personally prefer multi-class to dual class. I just don't like selecting the point where I stop gaining levels in one class altogether, it's just the kind of thing that I would regret later on. Having a kit is nice, but so is having access to three classes (F/M/T or F/M/C).

Goatboy and King Crimson thanks for the compliments and for correcting my mistake. I've got a downloaded handy table mentioning all the available class-options and indeed, Ranger>Cleric is there, I failed to notice it yesterday.

Yeah, but adamzs, a F/M/T and a F/M/C will never have level 9 mage spells. And all their spells will be cast at a lower level than DC or PC. And the F/M/C will never get its lvl 25 cleric ring.

DC'ing allows you to get the best levels of a fighter/ranger (benefits diminish significantly after 13), while getting to be almost as powerful a caster as PC.

(It should be noted that you can't make a gnome F/M/C, but you can make a Gnome C/M. So you are using the same gear, sacrificing level 9 mage spells, cleric ring, and 1 free spell slot per spell level for slightly improved combat ability...)

Those are fair points, but I usually get around that issue by setting the XP cap for FMT and FMC to 24 million XP. What can I say, I'm a cheater. :)

I know, in the vanilla game triple-class characters are hardly worth the sacrifice.

LOL, I had a feeling you messed with the cap. Did you use the mod that gives MC fighters grand mastery?

Nope, I did not use that one. I suppose that would be the point where I draw the line, hehe.