Ranger/Cleric or Fighter/Mage/Cleric?

Anteros

I'm going to start a new game, and I'm trying to choose what class I'm going to play.
I'm hesitating between R/C and F/M/C.
I want a character who is reliable in melee, can deal a lot of damage, and offer support to the party (by tanking, hhealing, buffing or de-buffing).
What class do you think would be best?

FinneousPJ

R/C because I think 3 way multis only work solo.

Mitchfork

A Mage triple-class tops out at level 17, so they never get level 9 spells or level 10 HLA's, which is something to consider. I think a triple-class levels too slow to be worth it unless you're working with a small party or doing a solo run. A Cleric/Ranger is able to do all of the things you want, so I'd lean towards that one. Plus you get neat spells like Iron Skins and Insect Plague that make you tankier and more effective against spellcasters.

Faydark

Assuming you're talking about multiclass R/C and not dual class R -> C, then here's some points to consider:

R/C will have better melee capability (due to free dual wielding and higher level)
R/C gets druid and cleric spells
R/C spells aren't particularly great at debuffing, compared to mage spells

F/M/C will potentially be more durable (mage + cleric buffs etc)
F/M/C will level ~30% slower

From reading the various BG forums over the years, many people are of the opinion that the triple multiclass characters should only be played in solo or small sized parties, in order for the leveling rate to keep up with the game progression. The duo multiclass is a bit more forgiving in this respect and I've just recently leveled C/M and T/M multiclasses through BG1:EE with little trouble, though I did only have a 5 member party for most of it (with the 6th slot free for picking up npcs needed for quests)

I'm working on my R/C playthrough on and off at the moment, but my sorc playthrough is taking precedence atm

Anteros

Not reaching level 9 spells isn't really a problem, this character isn't supposed to be the primary or even secondary arcane caster.
I'm rather wondering if the triple class' Thca0, AC and HP will be very inferior to the R/C's, and if the F/M/C's caster low caster level would be crippling.

vangoat

FinneousPJ said:

R/C because I think 3 way multis only work solo.

I'm playing an F/M/C in a party and it works fine. From a pure power perspective maybe it's not as good, but I like the versatility all the same.

Madhax

I'd rather just play a M/C than a F/M/C any day. Same versatile spell list, except with faster access to higher level magic. Missing 1.5 APR over time isn't a big deal compared to that.

Dragonspear

First of all, FMC's will still gain full HLAs once they pass the 2.7mil SoA xp threshhold. That said, as another poster mentioned, no level 9/10 spells for you.

I would say, play a Ranger/Cleric since you'll get to play with the spellbook of 2 classes (druid and cleric) and also play a mage/cleric for the sheer fun of sequencers etc.

Side Note: rolling up a ranger/cleric will be a LOT easier than rolling up a FMC

vangoat

Madhax said:

I'd rather just play a M/C than a F/M/C any day. Same versatile spell list, except with faster access to higher level magic. Missing 1.5 APR over time isn't a big deal compared to that.

I guess it depends if you're thinking about the endgame and final stats. I felt significantly more powerful as a f/m/c through BG1 than if i'd been just a m/c. For example I didn't feel the need to buff up like crazy for every fight, I could cast mirror image and haste and still do some damage dual wielding hammers. Plus it eliminated the need for me to bring along a specialised healer.

nano

My entirely theoretical opinion is that F/M/C is the better class, because the M shores up some of the weaknesses of F/C types (R/C being part of this category). First off, F/Cs are very vulnerable to dispel but SI:Abjuration stops that. F/Cs suffer from slow cast times on their divine spells, but with M they can use the Robe of Vecna. And both fighters and clerics don't need to reach very high levels to be effective - the cleric fighting boosts are level 5 and below, and fighters benefit little beyond 13. So putting some of that xp into a third class is not a big deal.

Still, as a triple class it's best done in a smaller party or solo.

Anteros

Madhax said:

I'd rather just play a M/C than a F/M/C any day. Same versatile spell list, except with faster access to higher level magic. Missing 1.5 APR over time isn't a big deal compared to that.

How good are C/M in melee? I really want this character to go toe to toe with the enemy.

kryptix

@anteros
They tank fine just they don't do much damage with only 1 apr.

Anteros

Can C/M get several attacks per round somehow?

Pantalion

@Anteros

Polymorph Self

Minor Sequencer: Divine Might, Hammer of Faith

You're now at five attacks per round, have 17-21 Strength, and are swinging a magical hammer.

ReadingRambo

I'm in the camp that thinks f/m/c is a waste. The fighter part just adds so little to the mix its not worth the xp problem.

Cleric already gives u access to all armor anyways, such as blade singer chain etc, and expands a mage weapon repertoire somewhat, and allows shields. Sure, you get fighter HLAs, but can't use them as effectively as pure or duo class multis. Your thaco just won't be high enough to make critical strike and whirlwind attack worth sacrificing level 10 spell slots.


It makes me think of Bilbo talking to Gandalf in Fellowship of the Ring. He says he feels stretched thin, like butter over too much bread.