Skip to content

The super backline Archer / Cleric

MungriMungri Member Posts: 1,645
This isnt a very popular build, and I dont know why.

Some people dont know that Ranger / Cleric is a valid multi and dual class, and that the Ranger kits can dual class to clerics too.

One great thing about dualing from a ranger to a cleric is that you get all the druid spells added to your spell book, as well as 1.5 attacks per round, and can place 2 proficiency points in your cleric weapon skills.

But what if you want to make a backline slinger Cleric? The Archer kit gains +1 to hit and damage every 3 levels with ANY missile weapon, slings included so +3 to hit and damage if you dual at level 9, plus you get 2 uses of called shot which would apply -1 Thaco and -1 saving throws vs spells to your targets.

And you still gain all the druid spells in your spellbook, with a single negative of only being able to wear leather armour, and though you can still only put 2 points into slings, your cleric is still going to be a much better backline slinger than any other.

And the missile bonuses from the 9 archer levels will also apply to Energy Blades too.
«1

Comments

  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,212
    Ranger/Cleric combinations have some of the best defenses in the game, with Armor of Faith, Iron Skins and the likes. Making them a back-line slinger essentially invalidates one of their big strengths. The Archer bonus damage at level 9 is not going to make up for slings not being great weapons to begin with. Their damage is fairly low compared to melee weapons, and you don't gain anything from being a ranged (i.e. the safety of range) because you'd be safe in melee as well (see above). I don't really see the advantages of an Archer->Cleric combo.
  • MungriMungri Member Posts: 1,645
    edited November 2013
    True, the advantage is that its better than a plain Cleric using a sling. Much much better.

    Plain Ranger / Cleric is still gonna be better.
  • KidCarnivalKidCarnival Member Posts: 3,747
    A dual wielding, frontlining ranger/cleric is even better. Why waste all those neat defensive spells on staying away from the action and throwing stones?
  • pekirtpekirt Member Posts: 111
    In ADnD, isn't sling (like crossbows) limited to ROF=1?
  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,212
    After looking into Archers again, I found the most compelling reason why slings are a bad idea: while they do in fact (and contrary to what I said earlier) gain their damage bonus with *any* missile weapon, they can achieve Grandmastery *only* in bows and crossbows. That makes the already weak and slow sling even weaker and slower. Yeah, not really a good option :(
  • MungriMungri Member Posts: 1,645
    Actually all slings in BG2EE get both Str and Dex bonuses applied to their attacks:

    http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/24413/slings-get-bonuses-from-dex-and-str#latest

    I'm not believing that this build would be weak, it seems powerful to me. The only class that can get grandmastery in slings anyway is a Fighter, and its a bad choice to be putting 5 points into on any fighter.

  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,212
    STR bonus is all fine and dandy, but that can't make up for lost APR. Coupled with the already low base damage and lack of special features, slings just seem like a very sub-par choice for any combination, and this one in particular. What is the advantage? Is there any reason to be going this route other than "I want to use slings" - in which case why are we even talking about this, if you want to do it, do it.
  • nanonano Member Posts: 1,632
    Most of the reasons slings are bad on a fighter would apply to this build as well. The biggest one being lack of APR. 1 base APR is just awful which is why two-handed weapons that aren't straight up amazing (ie Carsomyr) are passed up in favor of dual wielding. Regular two handers lose out and slings are even worse so despite +3 damage I wouldn't count on the build doing being a powerhouse. The archer 9 dual means you miss out on a lot of the ways you can make up APR as well - no level 13 bonus, no GWW, no GM.

    A GM fighter would do better with a sling than an archer because a level 9 archer doesn't have all that many bonuses. GM gives just as much damage as the archer bonus as well as an extra 1/2 attack. Heck an unkitted ranger would only do a bit less sling damage than the archer but be able to kick ass in melee and wear heavy armor as well while having the same casting abilities. Since slings get the strength bonus now the archer's +3 is even less important when 25 strength gives +14 and you really want to focus on hitting as many times as possible.
  • MungriMungri Member Posts: 1,645
    edited November 2013
    nano said:


    A GM fighter would do better with a sling than an archer because a level 9 archer doesn't have all that many bonuses.

    Fighter wouldnt get any druid spells. You can also dual at 13 if you want the extra 1/2 an attack, but its rarely done when dualing to a cleric as it takes too long to reactivate the primary class.
  • nanonano Member Posts: 1,632
    I knew you would say that, and I almost put in a sentence to preempt that but I thought it'd be too much. My point there is not to that a fighter>cleric is better overall, but that a fighter>cleric will perform better with a sling than an archer>cleric.
  • GoodSteveGoodSteve Member Posts: 607
    While it is an interesting idea, and I love the new sling damage bonus from strength in the grand scheme of things its not overly impressive. At lower levels I think slings, especially in the hands of high strength good Thac0 characters, can be very potent weapons (woo, go Montaron!) they will be outshone come the later stages of the saga. Sadly for this dual to be feasible it requires the late stages of the saga to even get both your archer and cleric classes activated.

    I think it's a cool idea, and I'm sure you will do pretty well as an Archer/Cleric, but I think a more melee focused Ranger/Cleric will deal more damage in the long run.
  • MungriMungri Member Posts: 1,645
    edited November 2013
    nano said:

    I knew you would say that, and I almost put in a sentence to preempt that but I thought it'd be too much. My point there is not to that a fighter>cleric is better overall, but that a fighter>cleric will perform better with a sling than an archer>cleric.

    No actually, a Fighter / Cleric isnt stronger for this build:

    First consider a base level 9 elf ranger with longbow grandmastery and 19 dex (the strongest Archer build):

    image


    1 Thaco, 9-14 damage, 3.5 attacks per round.

    Next is the 9 Fighter with sling grandmastery:



    6 Thaco, 9-12 damage, 2.5 attacks per round.

    Finally a 9 Archer with Sling specialization:



    4 Thaco, 10-13 damage, 2 attacks per round.

    So you just lose 0.5 attacks per round. You gain +2 Thaco, +1 damage roll, Called Shot and Druid Spells. I think the advantages far outweigh losing half an attack per round.
  • MungriMungri Member Posts: 1,645
    GoodSteve said:


    I think it's a cool idea, and I'm sure you will do pretty well as an Archer/Cleric, but I think a more melee focused Ranger/Cleric will deal more damage in the long run.

    Yes I have already accepted that a plain Ranger / Cleric going melee instead would be better.

  • nanonano Member Posts: 1,632
    @Mungri As for dualing at 13 vs 9, you can squeeze out another 1/2 attack but as you say it's a monumental effort and even with all that trouble it still won't be amazing. Maybe it'll push you from "passable" to "decent". But if you're dual wielding and dual at 13 instead of 9 it'll turn you from an already-excellent fighter into a living god of war.

    @GoodSteve I'm a big fan of Monty! At the start of the game his sling specialization + halfling bonus + strength bonus makes him surprisingly deadly at range.
  • nanonano Member Posts: 1,632
    Mungri said:

    nano said:

    I knew you would say that, and I almost put in a sentence to preempt that but I thought it'd be too much. My point there is not to that a fighter>cleric is better overall, but that a fighter>cleric will perform better with a sling than an archer>cleric.

    No actually, a Fighter / Cleric isnt stronger for this build:

    First consider a base level 9 elf ranger with longbow grandmastery and 19 dex (the strongest Archer build):

    image


    1 Thaco, 9-14 damage, 3.5 attacks per round.

    Next is the 9 Fighter with sling grandmastery:



    6 Thaco, 9-12 damage, 2.5 attacks per round.

    Finally a 9 Archer with Sling specialization:



    4 Thaco, 10-13 damage, 2 attacks per round.

    So you just lose 0.5 attacks per round. You gain +2 Thaco, +1 damage roll, Called Shot and Druid Spells. I think the advantages far outweigh losing half an attack per round.
    Shouldn't Grand Mastery give +5 to damage? Or did they change that? In any case, I appreciate that you went to the trouble of collecting the data though I'd still pick the +1/2 attack over +2 thac0/+1 damage/mediocre called shot. I think you're underrating APR - clerics can get 25 strength which is a whopping +14 to damage. +1 damage is really not that much. With 4 APR under improved haste, that's 4 extra damage per round. +1/2 attack gives you 7 extra damage per round from strength alone (on top of whatever other bonuses you have), doubled for improved haste.

    Druid spells: like I said, I was just comparing the sling abilities, not the spellcasting abilities. The fighter was just to illustrate the value of grand mastery, not recommend a sling-using fighter>cleric as a class (I mean, come on).

    The level 9 elf bow user illustrates just how much better bows are than slings. 1.5 APR over the sling archer is huge.
  • MungriMungri Member Posts: 1,645
    edited November 2013
    Everyone knows bows are better than slings, but Clerics cant use those.

    You're focusing too heavily on the sling side of the build, the intention for this is a cleric build with the added advatages of druid spells and more powerful slings over a vanila cleric.
  • nanonano Member Posts: 1,632
    Mungri said:


    You're focusing too heavily on the sling side of the build

    Hey, who's the one advocating the sling cleric here? I know the advantages of R/C already, but I don't see the value of making the R into an A. If you want to play the archer combo by all means go ahead and give it a shot. With the right team I can see it working out fine. I'm just saying I wasn't impressed by its capabilities when I tried it and if you look at the math it's not hard to see why.

    Of course it's better than a regular cleric because it's a ranger/cleric. But really, what you should be comparing is what the archer kit nets you compared to the vanilla ranger (or some other kit like stalker). You get +3/+3/called shot with your sling, which while enough to make your previously crappy slinging abilities less crappy is not going to make you into a one-man siege weapon.

    On the other hand, you're giving up melee specialization and metal armor, and resigning an amazing tank to a back-line role. Your regular ranger dual can plink away with rocks nearly as "well" as the archer (and a multiclassed R/C can probably do it better), but when it comes time to man up and stop being cute with the sling and deal some real damage he's going to come up short. Yes, being in the back means you take less damage but if your ranger/cleric is too delicate a flower to be standing in the front then who the heck do you have up there?
  • GamingFreakGamingFreak Member Posts: 639
    I see little point to an archer/cleric other than the innate abilities of the archer passed on to the Cleric, which at a lower leveled archer wouldn't be much. And then I'm pretty sure that because it was Archer/Cleric instead of Ranger dual'd to Cleric, you can't specialize in melee weapons (need confirmation), which further hurts this combo. If you want a backline cleric with GM in slings, just go fighter/cleric, or even Berserker/Cleric (which seems silly but it works).

    Ranger/Cleric multi is still infinitely times better. All the divine and druid spells in the game are available to you. You start with 2 points in Two Weapon fighting. You have access to some of the best weapons in the game (Flail of Ages, Crom Faeyr, Defender of Easthaven). You can wear the heaviest armors in the game; you get warrior-based thac0; access to Warrior and Cleric HLA's... I mean you have to basically have the crappiest rolls to make this class suck.

    Granted Ranger/Cleric multi-class is practically a cheat, so if you don't want to use it on that principle, I won't condemn you for it... but it's so much more fun than Archer/Cleric.
  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,212
    Mungri said:

    First consider a base level 9 elf ranger with longbow grandmastery and 19 dex (the strongest Archer build):

    I hope you realize that this comparison doesn't make much sense for this discussion, as elves cannot dual-class.

    And I agree with the general sentiment here: Archer->Cleric does not offer anything special to make it better than a regular Ranger/Cleric combination. So far your only argument seems to be "I want to use slings" - that's cool and all, but personal preference is just that, and not an argument. If you have an actual argument as to why an A->C would be better, I'd love to hear it.
  • MungriMungri Member Posts: 1,645
    Archer Cleric can be kept in back line from where it can actually cast its spells as well.

    Ranger / Clerics that try to melee cant cast a single spell because they are interrupt fodder.

    I have no idea how people are even managing to stand around for 9 seconds in the middle of a battle to recast iron skin, it doesn't work if you actually try it.

    This combination is working many times better when the Cleric can be kept away from enemies to actually cast its spells.
  • FrostyFrosty Member Posts: 190
    Don't forget draw upon holy might to boost your sling damage. and elemental damage bullets are plentiful and cheep to buy.
  • nanonano Member Posts: 1,632
    Mungri said:

    Archer Cleric can be kept in back line from where it can actually cast its spells as well.

    Ranger / Clerics that try to melee cant cast a single spell because they are interrupt fodder.

    I have no idea how people are even managing to stand around for 9 seconds in the middle of a battle to recast iron skin, it doesn't work if you actually try it.

    This combination is working many times better when the Cleric can be kept away from enemies to actually cast its spells.

    You don't cast in melee, you kill in melee. If you need to cast back off and cast (unless you're casting Harm or something). What sort of cleric spells are you casting mid-combat, anyways?

    Recasting iron skin is not necessary if the enemy is dead by then.
  • GamingFreakGamingFreak Member Posts: 639
    ... Ranger/Clerics can play from range too. They can also equip slings. They can play weapon + shield style too. But better yet, HEY, they can specialize in melee weapons. If you want to play A/C and get that mastery->Grand Mastery in slings and back-line everything, more power to you.

    And problems recasting spells in the middle of battle? Pretty sure R/Cs have several spells that can draw heat off of them (sanctuary, anyone?).
  • MungriMungri Member Posts: 1,645
    You don't melee if your a caster with ranged support, why are you building a caster and killing things with weapons?

    Unholy Smites, Insect Plagues, erm, actual HEALING spells.
  • nanonano Member Posts: 1,632
    Eh... Holy Smite is okay but mages are better damage dealers and IMO there are better options at that level. If you're going to cast Insect Plague cast it before running into melee. (It's also been nerfed in my game so I don't use it at all.) In-combat healing is for chumps and Heal is touch range anyways.

    The most important cleric spells are cast outside of combat, before combat or right at the start so just cast before you wade in. If you need to dispel then back off and dispel.
  • GamingFreakGamingFreak Member Posts: 639
    edited November 2013
    Mungri said:

    You don't melee if your a caster with ranged support, why are you building a caster and killing things with weapons?

    Unholy Smites, Insect Plagues, erm, actual HEALING spells.

    Why would a caster use melee? Why would anyone use Fighter/Mage? Why bother with Blade then? Might as well forget using that awesome Flail of Ages for Fighter/Cleric too, since you can use slings and cast spells.

    The whole point is that the Ranger/Cleric has the tools to *fight* everything on equal ground. Mages? Dispel and Insect plague spells. Groups of enemies? Smite AoEs. Undead? Turn their asses. Golems, or any other enemy? Buff yourself up with various cleric spells, cast Iron Skin, and *smash* them with dual-wielding fury.

    Wield the Flail of Ages and Defender of Easthaven in both hands, using those free two points you have on Two Weapon fighting, and you're one of the tankiest tanks in the game. Several blunt weapons you can use can outright *DESTROY* different types of enemies. You eat undead for breakfeast; mages can't do crap against you unless they spend tons of time trying to disable you, and by then they have spells cast on them to disrupt them.

    And you want to say that using Slings exclusively. *EXCLUSIVELY* is better than that. If you want to play that way, sure you can. Is it more effective? Hell no. Not in the slightest bit.
  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,212
    Mungri said:

    why are you building a caster and killing things with weapons?

    Because weapons are the most efficient source of damage in the game. There are no good damage spells outside of big AoE nukes, which you don't use that often. Spells are inherently flawed because of their 1 spell/turn limitation, while weapons skyrocket in output with higher APR. It is very inefficient to have a character that doesn't deal weapon damage. Buffs and support quickly reach a point of diminishing returns, which means you want every one of your "support" characters to have damage output.

    As for the Iron Skins - you rarely "tank" in this game, and if you do it's usually with a mage. IS's main use is to prevent incidental damage during times of low control, not as a main "tanking" tool. The majority of dangerous incoming damage is magical in any case.
  • Personally, I'd still go for the multiclass R/C over the dual A->C even if I intended to use the character exclusively as backline support. The A->C is the better slinger from 750k xp to 3 million xp, but then the R/C gets the extra half attack and pulls back in the lead for sling damage (without even mentioning having access to Warrior HLA's). A->C gets to level 6 and 7 divine spells faster, but for me the big payoff in divine spells (for either class) is level 5, and the R/C gets there while the A->C is still earning back his Archer levels. And the R/C can use better armor (for the parts of the game where AC actually matters or just for special effects) and has the option of being effective in melee combat if the situation calls for it.
  • OcculusXOcculusX Member Posts: 99
    Robe of Vecna allows you to overcome the APR issues with spellcasting, a little bit. Robe of Vecna + Improved Haste should lead to a pretty fast cast rate.
  • TeleronTeleron Member Posts: 25
    edited November 2013
    Are you sure about the base damage with slings? My testbuild had the same base damage as your typical 2handed sword, while the bow had something like half that damage range. Remember that slings get the full STR damage and the DEX bonus. Sure, you won't have a machine gun, you will only fire once in a while, but the base damage and the crit might still level it out.

    The reason why I decided against slings was the ammo. In the BG2:EE you can find for example Arrows of Detonation (+6d6 fire) or Disspelling. That is more useful than some base damage, especially if you can fire 3 in one round.
Sign In or Register to comment.