Cleric / Rangers wearing heavy armor is no different than a Cleric / Fighter wearing heavy armor. Divine spells can be cast while wearing heavy armor. Jaheria can cast spells all the time in heavy armor as a druid/fighter.
The reason could have been something as simple as "it was too hard to make a work around code for this".
EDIT:
Technically, the correct way of implementing this would probably be that you only get the Ranger spells at level 8 (?) AND you would gain special divine spell slots that could only be used for the Ranger spells.
As I have said this is one bug that should not be fixed. If any adjustment is made at all, determine the highest level spell a ranger can learn and allow him to learn druid spells up to that level in addition to cleric spells.
I might suggest a variation of what @Tanthalas just suggested, which is that Cleric/Rangers do get access to Druid spells, as they do now, but at a much slower progression. So level 1 Druid spells wouldn't show up until the Ranger side hit level 8, with eventually having level 5 spells show up at possibly level 17 or thereabouts. So it would have the advantage of still being able to ultimately cast all Divine spells, but the Druid side of things would be gained very slowly so as not to unbalance things.
I'm not even sure if this is possible or not, but it's worth a shot.
The way I see it, Cleric/Rangers, as they are currently, are powerful but not as much so as a Kensai->Mage or a Sorceror.
I actually even modded the game so that the Cleric weapon restrictions could be removed, mostly because the idea of a Ranger that couldn't use bows annoyed me. Now, put that in part of the game, and allow people to make a Cleric/Archer, and now we're starting to look at overpowered.
But just your straight Cleric/Ranger? They're not too bad.
1) Mage/warrior don't lose the ability to wear armor. They may wear it, but lose ability to cast spell with it. However, this doesn't apply to every armor I think. If i'm not mistaken, some elven chain permits spellcasting, but it's BG2/TOB content anyway. 2) As said, it isn't the most powerful combo anyway. Look at how broken kensai/thief and kensai/mage are. To some extent, even thief/mage is really good, or just solo thief with soooo many traps. Why "fixing" a class that is not the best while keeping the others intact ? 3) Nerfing for the sake of nerfing is equivalent to forbade selling peanut butter in a supermarket just because you are allergic to it. 4) If you really don't want to play multiplayer with those kind of classes, just request a [no dual/multiclass] filter. It'll be much more effective, and way more easy to implement and no more whining ^^
1) Mage/warrior don't lose the ability to wear armor. They may wear it, but lose ability to cast spell with it. However, this doesn't apply to every armor I think. If i'm not mistaken, some elven chain permits spellcasting, but it's BG2/TOB content anyway. 2) As said, it isn't the most powerful combo anyway. Look at how broken kensai/thief and kensai/mage are. To some extent, even thief/mage is really good, or just solo thief with soooo many traps. Why "fixing" a class that is not the best while keeping the others intact ? 3) Nerfing for the sake of nerfing is equivalent to forbade selling peanut butter in a supermarket just because you are allergic to it. 4) If you really don't want to play multiplayer with those kind of classes, just request a [no dual/multiclass] filter. It'll be much more effective, and way more easy to implement and no more whining ^^
The trouble is that this is a bug, not something that is a debatable part of the game mechanics. It's a bug that lots of people exploit but it does not make it any less a bug. It is intended that the Ranger follow the D&D 2e rules for that class, meaning he should gain only spells up to level 3 on a very slow progression. It's not a "nerf" to fix this, it is a correction.
The way I see it, it's more of a debatable feature then a bug. I can see many reasons why it can be considered coherent. And BG wasn't known to follow D&D 2e rule exactly to the letter either. Additionally, that is the only thing that make the class interesting. Take that back and everyone will choose fighter/cleric instead. People are complaining about underpowered class but then choose to deliberately alienate a rather good one, so weird. It's definitely not something to be "corrected". No one would like to play your "corrected" version over F/C or F/D =/
Why would I ever, EVER play a Cleric/Ranger if you were to get rid of this so-called "bug"? Oh yeah, I wouldn't, at all.
Now yes, technically it IS a bug, but honestly it's the only thing that makes the class interesting. If you don't get those druid spells, or rather, start getting Level 1 Druid spells at Ranger Level 8, what is the point at all? Oh yeah, you get stealth ... except who honestly wears leather armor as a cleric. No one. Oh, you can charm animals ... seriously that is very situational. And a racial enemy, which is also situational. Why would I grab Cleric/Ranger for those three exceedingly boring powers when I can grab a Fighter/Cleric and level up much sooner? Especially in BG1. If you play Cleric/Ranger in BG1 you max out your Ranger at 7 and Cleric at 8 I believe. You wouldn't even get those pathetic Level 1 Druid spells.
If you fix this bug you pretty much screw over the class entirely.
Why would anyone ever play a Cleric/Thief? Should we give the Cleric/Thief more spells to compensate for it being a generally mechanically underpowered class, even though it would make no sense? The game is not exacty difficult so you can probably complete it even if you don't play a perfect build, but it should follow a consistent set of rules.
Who the F**K cares if its there and you dont like it dont use it if its there and you like it use it its that simple, if it gets taken out it takes around one hour to get modded back in anyways.
Why would anyone ever play a Cleric/Thief? Should we give the Cleric/Thief more spells to compensate for it being a generally mechanically underpowered class, even though it would make no sense? The game is not exacty difficult so you can probably complete it even if you don't play a perfect build, but it should follow a consistent set of rules.
In this case, I believe the bug is so standard, that it has become part of the "tradition". Yes it's a bug, but one that everyone loves.
Cleric/thieves never got any "accident" to help them, so let's not create one.
Who the F**K cares if its there and you dont like it dont use it if its there and you like it use it its that simple, if it gets taken out it takes around one hour to get modded back in anyways.
I care because I want to be able to play a cleric/ranger that actually follows the rules, and I want a consistent ruleset for the game in general. Why bother fixing any bug when you can just ignore them?
I thought in 2nd Edition that Rangers were supposed to get Druid pool of spells?
They are supposed to get a very slow progression of druid spells going up only to 3rd level and starting at Ranger level 8. However because in BG Priest and Druid spells use the same interface, a Ranger/Cleric becomes more like a Druid/Cleric, with access to all Druid spells on a cleric progression. It's overpowered, it's cheesy and it doesn't make any sense.
The fact that cleric/rangers get full druid spells is indeed, a bug. Cleric/ranger multiclass gets druid spells up to level 3( starting at level 8 of ranger), and dual class ranger/clerics get spells depending on the level they dualclassed.
It is the truth unfortunetely, that cleric/rangers are the best tanks of the game because of this bug.
They will probably lose their appeal if you take it away, but what should you do in any case? Make something more powerful than it should be because of bugs?
Baldur's Gate is a game in it's own right, and I couldn't care less how closely it follows "D&D rules"
I have never played D&D but I absolutely love Baldur's Gate how it is. If they started taking things away to make it closer to the D&D rules I would be less satisfied. Yes it is very much based on D&D but let the game play by it's own rules, as they are awesome fun.
Baldur's Gate is a game in it's own right, and I couldn't care less how closely it follows "D&D rules"
I have never played D&D but I absolutely love Baldur's Gate how it is. If they started taking things away to make it closer to the D&D rules I would be less satisfied. Yes it is very much based on D&D but let the game play by it's own rules, as they are awesome fun.
But this is a bug, not taking away something the developers intended. If we don't care about what the developers intended then how will we know what is a bug and what isn't? This isn't part of the intended rules of Baldurs Gate, the connection to D&D is irrelevant.
Unlike an extra feature, this Cleric/Ranger combination replaces the actual Cleric/Ranger combination, and indeed, as Communard says, some players might be interested in the actual Cleric/Ranger combination, which to me is much more interesting than a Cleric/Fighter combination. Less powerful, maybe, but certainly a more varied option of skills!
Unlike an extra feature, this Cleric/Ranger combination replaces the actual Cleric/Ranger combination, and indeed, as Communard says, some players might be interested in the actual Cleric/Ranger combination, which to me is much more interesting than a Cleric/Fighter combination. Less powerful, maybe, but certainly a more varied option of skills!
I don't see this as a replacement of the build because the way it is, is exactly how a cleric/ranger would be except for the extra spells available. You can still hide in shadows, get the two weapon style bonus, have a favored enemy, and so on, but you do however have druid spells that would not normally be allowed to this build. So again, it goes back to should it follow strict D&D rules or be another BG exception? I for one would like it to remain an exception, as this class makes little sense without it.
I hope they don't change the Ranger/Cleric. I enjoy playing Rangers more than any other class (it's an RP thing) but the single class kits never really appealed to me. Archery was never my thing, Valygar was already a Stalker, and Beastmaster's weapon choices suck.
Playing a multi-classed Ranger/Cleric gave me the best of three worlds: my favourite race (half-elf), my favourite class (Ranger), and some group utility (Cleric, negating the need for a Viconia/Anomen/Aerie type). It might have been a little bit overpowered but I only found a few of the Druid spells to be particularly useful anyways. Most of all what this did was allow me to run with a smaller party for the extra XP: Minsc, Jaheira, Imoen, and Edwin was generally my party of choice after modding the game so that Minsc and Edwin didn't kill each other.
I couldn't say how the dual-class version is because I won't play human characters. Doing so might make the Beastmaster tolerable to play but humans are just so boring...
@Communard I think we all have a very thorough understanding of your opinion on this. Can you please stop repeating yourself? If you have new points, then please do bring them up, but I keep reading the same thing over and over. Your point is very much valid but reading it for the fourth time now somehow is making it less and less attractive.
Doesn't the power of this dual/multiclass option defeat the point of multiclassing a fighter/druid. I mean purely from a powergaming perspective. I suppose you'd get access to different strongholds, and you'd level up quicker, and you would eventually gain the druids greater elemental summoning if you are a druid. Still, a druid has to have a minimum of 15 charisma (including fighter/druids), whereas a ranger/cleric only needs 3. Not having that dump stat very likely hurts one of their other stats (even if it is just intelligence). Plus there are additional weapon restrictions as a fighter/ druid you don't face as a cleric (you can use scimitars though, which I suppose is sort of nice). By the end you do get a higher number of level 7 spells than any cleric/ranger would get, but they get more of every other spell level. I would not be opposed to them addressing this issue in some way. Iron Skins should remain solely something obtainable by druids IMO, as should insect plague. I will agree to leave the cleric/ranger with spells like goodberry of course.
Fighter/Druids do have the advantage of using Scimitars, though the significance of that could be debated. Dual-classing would be a lot quicker too, I think, because of how fast Druids level (pre-level 14 wall, of course).
I'm not suggesting it is much of a bonus so much as it is a difference. I mean you get the benefit of the badass duel wielding scimitar look. I'd also add that fighter / druids can use darts.
One possible way to fix this issue would be to only allow Cleric/Rangers access to cleric and ranger spells, and introduce the Druid/Ranger multiclass option, which is actually part of 2nd Edition Forgotten Realms canon. Ladies and gents, I present to you, the Shadoweirs of Mielikki.
(From Faiths and Avatars) Named for the greatest trees of the forests, the shadowtops and the weirwoods, the Shadoweirs are a highly secretive branch of the faith that originated in the northern reaches of the High Forest. Its members consist solely of half-elf multiclassed druid/rangers, and its membership has spread (thinly) beyond the High Forest throughout all of Faerûn.
Requirements: Str 13, Dex 13, Con 14, Wis 14, Cha 15 Alignment: NG Race: Half-Elf Weapons: Club, sickle, dart, spear, dagger, scimitar, sling, staff, long sword, long bow Armor: Any
Note: Mielikkian druid/rangers are the only known exception in Faerûn to the rule that druids must be neutral in alignment.
Kensai/Mage crushes Cleric/Ranger IMHO, and doesn't come with the weapon limitations. I'm not sure what you guys are talking about when you say that druids suck. Single classed druids need very little XP compared to ranger/druids, and thus get their spells much faster. Higher level druid spells trump low-level cleric spells + druid spells. I've seen cleric/rangers in action. They're good, but not overpowered, and I agree that it's about the only reason to play one.
I mean, according to the fixed forum, druid shapeshifters will be getting their proper bonuses now, and as someone who plays with community fixes, I can say that properly working shapeshifter druids are pretty darn awesome. In BG I, they are a terrible, terrible force to the reckoned with.
About the only thing that makes Ranger/Clerics decent is that they make great tanks at high level due to ironskins. Otherwise, they're not that impressive. In terms of dual-classed Ranger/Clerics, I did that once. Thought I was being really clever, but was terribly disappointed. Just ended up as a cleric with a few extra spells, which I suppose was fine, but it didn't really affect the game much.
I'd say keep it. Some folks like Cleric/Rangers, and I don't think it's OP, because it's not like everyone is playing cleric/rangers. It's nice, but it's not that nice.
In case the poll sort of dies out and people happen to come across this thread at a later date, be it noted to all that there is a poll now up on this issue.
Comments
1. It's a bug
2. The game is now multi-player
It needs to be fixed. If people want to make the game easier allow some sort of godmode in Single Player and let them cheat themselves.
I don't think any mod ever fixed this, there must be a reason...
EDIT:
Technically, the correct way of implementing this would probably be that you only get the Ranger spells at level 8 (?) AND you would gain special divine spell slots that could only be used for the Ranger spells.
I'm not even sure if this is possible or not, but it's worth a shot.
The way I see it, Cleric/Rangers, as they are currently, are powerful but not as much so as a Kensai->Mage or a Sorceror.
I actually even modded the game so that the Cleric weapon restrictions could be removed, mostly because the idea of a Ranger that couldn't use bows annoyed me. Now, put that in part of the game, and allow people to make a Cleric/Archer, and now we're starting to look at overpowered.
But just your straight Cleric/Ranger? They're not too bad.
2) As said, it isn't the most powerful combo anyway. Look at how broken kensai/thief and kensai/mage are. To some extent, even thief/mage is really good, or just solo thief with soooo many traps. Why "fixing" a class that is not the best while keeping the others intact ?
3) Nerfing for the sake of nerfing is equivalent to forbade selling peanut butter in a supermarket just because you are allergic to it.
4) If you really don't want to play multiplayer with those kind of classes, just request a [no dual/multiclass] filter. It'll be much more effective, and way more easy to implement and no more whining ^^
Why would I ever, EVER play a Cleric/Ranger if you were to get rid of this so-called "bug"? Oh yeah, I wouldn't, at all.
Now yes, technically it IS a bug, but honestly it's the only thing that makes the class interesting. If you don't get those druid spells, or rather, start getting Level 1 Druid spells at Ranger Level 8, what is the point at all? Oh yeah, you get stealth ... except who honestly wears leather armor as a cleric. No one. Oh, you can charm animals ... seriously that is very situational. And a racial enemy, which is also situational. Why would I grab Cleric/Ranger for those three exceedingly boring powers when I can grab a Fighter/Cleric and level up much sooner? Especially in BG1. If you play Cleric/Ranger in BG1 you max out your Ranger at 7 and Cleric at 8 I believe. You wouldn't even get those pathetic Level 1 Druid spells.
If you fix this bug you pretty much screw over the class entirely.
Cleric/thieves never got any "accident" to help them, so let's not create one.
It is the truth unfortunetely, that cleric/rangers are the best tanks of the game because of this bug.
They will probably lose their appeal if you take it away, but what should you do in any case? Make something more powerful than it should be because of bugs?
I have never played D&D but I absolutely love Baldur's Gate how it is. If they started taking things away to make it closer to the D&D rules I would be less satisfied. Yes it is very much based on D&D but let the game play by it's own rules, as they are awesome fun.
Playing a multi-classed Ranger/Cleric gave me the best of three worlds: my favourite race (half-elf), my favourite class (Ranger), and some group utility (Cleric, negating the need for a Viconia/Anomen/Aerie type). It might have been a little bit overpowered but I only found a few of the Druid spells to be particularly useful anyways. Most of all what this did was allow me to run with a smaller party for the extra XP: Minsc, Jaheira, Imoen, and Edwin was generally my party of choice after modding the game so that Minsc and Edwin didn't kill each other.
I couldn't say how the dual-class version is because I won't play human characters. Doing so might make the Beastmaster tolerable to play but humans are just so boring...
Other than that though I'm inclined to agree.
(From Faiths and Avatars)
Named for the greatest trees of the forests, the shadowtops and the weirwoods, the Shadoweirs are a highly secretive branch of the faith that originated in the northern reaches of the High Forest. Its
members consist solely of half-elf multiclassed druid/rangers, and its membership has spread (thinly) beyond the High Forest throughout all of Faerûn.
Requirements: Str 13, Dex 13, Con 14, Wis 14, Cha 15
Alignment: NG
Race: Half-Elf
Weapons: Club, sickle, dart, spear, dagger, scimitar, sling, staff, long sword, long bow
Armor: Any
Note: Mielikkian druid/rangers are the only known exception in Faerûn to the rule that druids must be neutral in alignment.
I mean, according to the fixed forum, druid shapeshifters will be getting their proper bonuses now, and as someone who plays with community fixes, I can say that properly working shapeshifter druids are pretty darn awesome. In BG I, they are a terrible, terrible force to the reckoned with.
About the only thing that makes Ranger/Clerics decent is that they make great tanks at high level due to ironskins. Otherwise, they're not that impressive. In terms of dual-classed Ranger/Clerics, I did that once. Thought I was being really clever, but was terribly disappointed. Just ended up as a cleric with a few extra spells, which I suppose was fine, but it didn't really affect the game much.
I'd say keep it. Some folks like Cleric/Rangers, and I don't think it's OP, because it's not like everyone is playing cleric/rangers. It's nice, but it's not that nice.
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/3231/opinion-of-clericrangers