[BG:EE] Fighter/Mage vs Fighter/Cleric

Urd1en

Sometimes I intend to go through BG:EE with Fighter/Cleric character, but all the time I turn this idea down in favour of playing Fighter/Mage.

1. The only weighty Fighter/Cleric benefit over Fighter/Mage seems to be the ability to cast memorized sells with armor put on. Mages cannot do so.

But is it really valuable benefit?
Personally, I'd mark out three handy cleric COMBAT TIME spells (excluding the ranger/druidish magic).
They are:
* Doom (lvl 1)
* Silence, 15' Radius (lvl 2)
* Miscast Magic (lvl 3)

The rest of stuff - buffs, summoning, healing, etc. - may be cast before/after combat by BOTH Fighter/Cleric and Fighter/Mage (take off the armor, cast, put on one).

2. Casting from scrolls, using wands, potions and items is not affected by armor being put on or taken off.

3. Fighter/Mage can use any weapon, Fighter/Cleric's choice is limited.


Have I missed something, or Fighter/Cleric comparing with Fighter/Mage is truly not worth to be main character in BG:EE? Why one should choose Fighter/Cleric? What do you think?

atcDave

Either combination can be a strong character, but I really like how fighter/clerics can be such excellent tanks right from the start. Fighter/Mage can be great as an archer, but really thief/Mage or cleric/Mage can be as good or better.

Pibaro

Fighter - mage is the best option only if you intend to use him as a tank, but you need to wait until the second part of BG2.
In BGEE a fighter - cleric charname could be both the best cleric in game and the best fighter in the game (and in bg2 is the same).
There are mage like edwin or You Know Who who will always be better mage than your charname (at least if we are talking about number of spell).
As I said above, if F-M is going to be a tank in BG2, he's going to be a war machine.

zur312

power level of fighter/mage is higher in BG1 too but... fighter/cleric is really stable character all the time(from the start)

so for new players fighter/cleric dwarf is great character with buffs healing great summoning and easy use of armors

KidCarnival

Both can be good, it depends on how you want to use the character. The spells you list aren't the only ones you may want to cast during combat. Command is very useful and has a faster casting time than other disables, which can give your mage the time to finish casting something else, for example.

Wanderon

Neither are really "better" PC candidates - both have pro's and cons - and different playstyles.

I tend to favor clerics myself.

other useful early cleric spells in combat would be: command, hold, animate dead, rigid thinking .

Perhaps the biggest plus the cleric has in BGEE is lack of squishyness...

CoM_Solaufein

Fighter/Mage is what I play in most of my games. I like the fighter abilities and the power to cast spells. This type of character can be very powerful at high levels.

Nifft

Fighter/Clerics are not much better than single-class Clerics at melee, especially not kitted Clerics who have inherent spells which give them more attacks per round. (Human Fighter>Clerics can be excellent, though, thanks to Grand Mastery.)

Fighter/Mages are significantly better than single-class Wizards at melee thanks to better weapon and equipment selection (swords, shields & helmets), and a Gnome Fighter/Illusionist gets some great saving throw perks and gets to be a kitted Wizard.

For a tank, almost nothing will increase your survival chances better than Mirror Image + Stoneskin, especially if you can repeatedly cast them.

zur312

Nifft said:

Fighter/Clerics are not much better than single-class Clerics at melee, especially not kitted Clerics who have inherent spells which give them more attacks per round. (Human Fighter>Clerics can be excellent, though, thanks to Grand Mastery.)

Fighter/Mages are significantly better than single-class Wizards at melee thanks to better weapon and equipment selection (swords, shields & helmets), and a Gnome Fighter/Illusionist gets some great saving throw perks and gets to be a kitted Wizard.

For a tank, almost nothing will increase your survival chances better than Mirror Image + Stoneskin, especially if you can repeatedly cast them.

that may just be in bg1 level but in bg2 fighter/cleric is much better than pure cleric

bg2
+* in weapons
+more apr
+fighter hla

lunar

Why don't you be a fighter/mage/cleric? :-)

DreadKhan

Command and domination are brutally awesome. Clerics are IMO better, if played like an enchanter, in bgee, though in soa, yeah, Mage is better... They get 2 more levels. At least give clerics Miracle, functioning exactly like limited wish. Something.

Also, cleric fighters are self buffing juggernauts. Duhm, aide, holy power, etc. great options.

God

Try a Cleric/Mage.

IkMarc

God said:

Try a Cleric/Mage.

Doing that now. Result so far:

Begin BG1 meh
Mid BG1 decent
End BG1 good

BG2 supremacy

Nifft

zur312 said:

Nifft said:

Fighter/Clerics are not much better than single-class Clerics at melee, especially not kitted Clerics who have inherent spells which give them more attacks per round. (Human Fighter>Clerics can be excellent, though, thanks to Grand Mastery.)

Fighter/Mages are significantly better than single-class Wizards at melee thanks to better weapon and equipment selection (swords, shields & helmets), and a Gnome Fighter/Illusionist gets some great saving throw perks and gets to be a kitted Wizard.

For a tank, almost nothing will increase your survival chances better than Mirror Image + Stoneskin, especially if you can repeatedly cast them.

that may just be in bg1 level but in bg2 fighter/cleric is much better than pure cleric

bg2
+* in weapons
+more apr
+fighter hla

This topic is about BG1, and in BG1 there's not much benefit to a F/C.

The benefits are:
- More HP from Con > 16 (especially for a Dwarf or Half-Orc)
- Specialization

The cost is:
- Slow leveling (late and fewer spells)
- No Cleric kit, all of which provide some kind of melee buff power

So you're gaining always-on HP and Specialization (3/2 apr) in trade for giving up powers like Helm's 3/1 apr (twice as good as Specialization) and free True Sight (mage-killer, which frees up a level 5 spell slot or two).

This is a poor trade in BG1.

zur312

i think the best kit(bg1ee) is lathander ? the +1apr

helm with sword can't cast spells lol

Trouveur

The best is the ranger/cleric : all the druid and cleric spells available, free two points in dual wielding proficiency, favored ennemy, stealth...

Cleric is a strong choice thanks to the three tomes of wisdom.

A dual class fighter 7 => druid 9 would also be very good.

I disagree about the cleric being as good as a fighter/cleric in BG1 :

- better thAC0
- better HP
- better APR : two for the F/C (and one more if dual wielding), against one for the cleric
- not so many less spells : difference between a lvl 7 cleric (lvl max for a F/C in BG1) and a lvl 8 cleric (lvl max for cleric in BG1) is very tiny
- can dual wield two weapons
- kits special abilties are nice, but can only be used a few times per day, the benefits from a fighter are always available

Lemernis

Ideally, the poll should ask which is preferred not which is "better." Because both are very strong.

But that said, I would give the nod to F/M for all the disabling spells that a Fighter/Mage can cast in addition to powerful meleeing ability. Especially AoE spells, which are hugely powerful in BG1. Sleep alone takes care of most low level mobs. Horror and Glitterdust take care of mid-level mobs. Emotion: Hopelessness and Confusion are higher level equivalents of Sleep and Horror, if you reach 4th level spells in BG1. They are absolutely devastating AoE spells in BG1 and for about the first half of BG2.

Then with all the disabling spells that target individuals available to a mage to use on enemy spellcasters and their most formidable tanks, that seals it for me. (Blindness, Charm, Ray of Enfeeblement, Hold Person, Dire Charm, Slow, Contagion.) And that's not even mentioning the array of spells that deliver damage.

All that, plus you can melee with the very best of any class. Unarmored but with a familiar, Armor, Shield, and the right gear, a F/M's AC is in negative territory. And if you can attain a high enough level, then Stoneskin can be added too. Every once in a while you take a little damage, but you drink a few healing potions as needed--no biggie. Dual-wielding longswords or scimitars your F/M will get the most kills by far.

I mean, Fighter/Cleric is way powerful too. But the spells available to a cleric can't put as much hurt on the enemy imho.

Oxford_Guy

But Bard (well, Blade, at least) is more fun

mjs

i don't see the point in fighter/clerics, how much more does it add when compared to a kitted cleric? all you get is the extra HP really

i really think you're better as a priest of lathander if you want to do F/C. with holy power and righteous magic, you're better off. boon of lathander is ridiculously powerful too. priest of talos's storm shield is good too

Wanderon

mjs said:

i don't see the point in fighter/clerics, how much more does it add when compared to a kitted cleric? all you get is the extra HP really

i really think you're better as a priest of lathander if you want to do F/C. with holy power and righteous magic, you're better off. boon of lathander is ridiculously powerful too. priest of talos's storm shield is good too

I don't see abilities with limited uses being superior to better thac0/damage all the time myself. Unless your playstyle involves resting after every battle.

Pibaro

mjs said:

i don't see the point in fighter/clerics, how much more does it add when compared to a kitted cleric? all you get is the extra HP really

You get better thac0, you get more APR, get more prof. point, can be specialized in weapon, do more damage, can use fighter only magic items, can access to fighter high level abilites.
In one word, you are better in everything related to combat.

Lemernis

Ditto what @Wanderon said. A Fighter has much better THAC0, APR and HP than a pure class cleric.

For a dual-classed Fighter/Priest of Lathander, Boon of Lathander looks really attractive for even higher APR. (Myself, I would dual at Fighter 3 in a BG:EE game.)

Wanderon

Pibaro said:

mjs said:

i don't see the point in fighter/clerics, how much more does it add when compared to a kitted cleric? all you get is the extra HP really

You get better thac0, you get more APR, get more prof. point, can be specialized in weapon, do more damage, can use fighter only magic items, can access to fighter high level abilites.
In one word, you are better in everything related to combat.

Agreed - but that is more than one word unless you spell it like this - betterineverythingrelatedtocombat

mjs

a PoL has better thaco, better APR, levels quicker, more cleric spells and pretty much equal damage (if not more)

fighter HLAs is a loss. items wise you're only losing out on the fighter only gauntlets and helm, the gauntlets are great, but better on another NPC and the helm is average

smeagolheart

Between the two choices, in BG1, I'd take Fighter/Cleric over Fighter/Mage. BG2 where spell durations last a bit longer and where you have access to more powerful mage spells, I think the balance of power would shift to fighter/mage. Low levels and BG1 though I think Fighter/Cleric takes it.

Fighting_Ferret

I see everyone addressing this through a melee standpoint, but I'm going to argue that the use of wands tips the balance in favor of the fighter/mage. The fighter/cleric is a great kit...probably more so for a melee/tank character... the fighter/mage loses armor, but the use of wands is too great to dismiss... and the higher level crowd control spells remove the need for tanks in many ways...

Sarevok can be defeated by the use of 1 arcane spell... greater malaison with almost any other lower level spell you can cast... like blind or hold person, or a wand of paralysis... or you could go for the ever cheesy cloudkill, which will kill anything in BG1 with enough casts...

Cleric spells are great, but arcane spells tend to beat them. And I'd personally go ranged and not worry about melee... the use of a composite longbow in BG1 is not to be taken lightly.

Trouveur

Lemernis said:

Ditto what @Wanderon said. A Fighter has much better THAC0, APR and HP than a pure class cleric.
For a dual-classed Fighter/Priest of Lathander, Boon of Lathander looks really attractive for even higher APR. (Myself, I would dual at Fighter 3 in a BG:EE game.)

Last time I cheked, kit could only be taken for the first class, not the second one ?

mjs said:

a PoL has better thaco, better APR, levels quicker, more cleric spells and pretty much equal damage (if not more)

fighter HLAs is a loss. items wise you're only losing out on the fighter only gauntlets and helm, the gauntlets are great, but better on another NPC and the helm is average

As said above, an ability usable once per day can not be compared to normal behavior of another character. F/C is far better at melee (HP, ThAC0, APR, dual wielding, weapon specialization...), and almost equal in spellcasting (one less lvl3 spell and one less lvl4 spell, not a big deal really when you have 21 in wisdom and so many bonus spells).

zur312

but fighter/cleric is worse than ranger/cleric
same hp
same apr
but +druidic spells

stkaye

Trouveur said:

The best is the ranger/cleric : all the druid and cleric spells available, free two points in dual wielding proficiency, favored ennemy, stealth...

This.

Of the two options here, the fighter/cleric makes the most sense in terms of gameplay and roleplaying. You have to reconcile some very disparate tendencies with a fighter/mage.

Ranger/clerics, though, are a lot of fun to play. Enormous potential as a tank and front line fighter, strategic limitations on equipment from both classes to help you RP (and know what to sell!), and a hugely diverse spellcasting ability.

Nifft

stkaye said:

Ranger/clerics, though, are a lot of fun to play. Enormous potential as a tank and front line fighter, strategic limitations on equipment from both classes to help you RP (and know what to sell!), and a hugely diverse spellcasting ability.

One small thing I noticed about Ranger/Cleric and Ranger>Cleric was that Clerics don't level up as fast as Druids towards the mid-game.

So if you want swift access to Ironskins or Insect Plague, you may be better off taking a Fighter>Druid (or ideally Berserker>Druid). Druids also get more 7th level spells than Clerics do, even if their 15th level XP is, shall we say, non-linear.

By the end of ToB it doesn't matter, of course -- you'll have 7th level spells either way.

Lemernis

Trouveur said:

Lemernis said:

Ditto what @Wanderon said. A Fighter has much better THAC0, APR and HP than a pure class cleric.
For a dual-classed Fighter/Priest of Lathander, Boon of Lathander looks really attractive for even higher APR. (Myself, I would dual at Fighter 3 in a BG:EE game.)

Last time I cheked, kit could only be taken for the first class, not the second one ?

Yeah, I inadvertently switched them, oops.