Opinion of Cleric/Rangers
elminster
Member, Developer Posts: 16,317
Someone made a point of suggesting awhile back that a poll should be made on this. From what I can tell (I skimmed through about ten pages of the general section) no one ever did.
As it stands now Cleric/Ranger multiclass characters (and Ranger -> Cleric dual class characters) get access to upper level Druid exclusive spells (levels 4-7). They get this despite the fact that single class Rangers only get access to level 3 Druid spells. My question is, do you think this should be changed for BG:EE and BG:EE2?
You can find a discussion on the matter here already.
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/2441/clericranger-in-bgee/p1
I just felt that given that it is a well known issue that a poll could provide a perspective on how the community feels about it. Feel free to talk about this issue on the previous discussion thread.
As it stands now Cleric/Ranger multiclass characters (and Ranger -> Cleric dual class characters) get access to upper level Druid exclusive spells (levels 4-7). They get this despite the fact that single class Rangers only get access to level 3 Druid spells. My question is, do you think this should be changed for BG:EE and BG:EE2?
You can find a discussion on the matter here already.
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/2441/clericranger-in-bgee/p1
I just felt that given that it is a well known issue that a poll could provide a perspective on how the community feels about it. Feel free to talk about this issue on the previous discussion thread.
- Opinion of Cleric/Rangers390 votes
- Yes, at their maximum level Cleric/Ranger's should only be able to learn up to level 3 Druid spells along with all Cleric spells (including Cleric and Ranger hla's)35.13%
- Yes, some other sort of change is needed to address this imbalance9.23%
- No55.64%
3
Comments
Yes, there's Multiplayer and you MIGHT come across someone who uses it. But really: Either don't play with him or be a sensible adult and just ask him to not use the druid spells while he's playing with you. Come on guys, this is Baldur's Gate, not some 3rd-person-shooter. We're all grown up.
The last thing this game needs is a melee nerf. And playing Ran->Cle dual class is of doubtful usefulness in any case.
Who says that druids and by extensions rangers will get access to all bg2 spells, like iron skin anyway since they didnt in vanilla bg1.
Besides, if you don't like it, just don't pick the spells... if you can resist
And another note is that Druids get the other advantage that C/Rs can't get - the elemental princes.
If most people agree that they want the class to remain unchanged, I see no reason not to leave it the way it is. It's certainly not the only quirk of the rule set in the game.
Those people prattling on about rather playing a Fighter/Cleric, go ahead, go and play a Fighter/Cleric. By exploiting this bug you are levelling up as a dual caster Druid/Cleric with a Warrior Thaco and Ranger Dual-Wielding (plus other ranger benefits) thrown in for free.
If you want to cheat then mod your game, don't leave inherent bugs in the game like this if they can be fixed.
I feel like I should probably jump in and make my case, seeing how there are many who have expressed their own opinions already here and the majority of them have been opposed to this (especially the comments). So I'm just going to repost what I wrote on that other thread I mentioned (some minor edits + additions).
The power of the Cleric/Ranger dual/multiclass option defeats 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 (to a point given the experience jump of druids), and you would eventually gain the druids greater elemental summoning if you are a druid (late in Soa). Still, a druid has to have a minimum of 15 charisma (including both multiclass and dual class 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 and darts though, which I suppose is sort of nice). With 8 million experience your character would get a higher number of level 7 spells than any cleric/ranger would get, but Cleric/ Rangers get more spells available for every other spell level.
I haven't seen anything that shows that it isn't a bug as of yet. To me if they are going to address bugs like the Shapeshifter's Werewolf specifically because it nerfs the kit it makes sense that they address this issue. Especially since it seems like it is an issue that can't be solved by modders. Ultimately, as it stands now a pure non-kit druid really only is worth playing if it is either a dual or multiclassed character. For the sake of balance I think it makes sense that druids should have spells exclusive to druids. More than just a few higher level abilities certainly (they get shapechange forms too - which I assume to be druid specific). Especially since they already have very limited spell choices.
However, many people thought this was nonsense, and introduced rules where your high stat on a score, would allow you to bypass the level cap and continue on.
Let's not get into the whole racial level cap thing.
Baldur's Gate used stuff from the 3rd edition too like the Barbarian or the Monk. It also removed racial level caps as a borrowing rule from 3rd edition again. It's not clear 2nd Edition.
We are talking about something entirely different here. A cleric/ranger multiclass should get access to both his classes qualites, and the ranger does not have spells beyond 3rd level.
This was not the bending of the rules on behalf of the developers, it was an engine bug. In that aspect, what i wrote was wrong as well, it was not rules are rules, but bugs should be fixed.
Now, since i won't play a cleric/ranger, and there is no one in the game, they can keep him as he is and i won't care at all.
Just saying my opinion that it should work differently. What's the point of fighter/druid anyway, if i can have cleric/ranger with druid spells?
Also, BGEE should be trying to preserve as much of the classic game as possible. No one is forcing you to play the Cleric/Ranger class; make a Druid and have fun playing. This is not a competitive game with balancing needs, so it should not be changed because a handful of players think its ridiculous.
If your class is strong because of a bug and you like it like that, well nice for you, what can i say.
As i said, i won't mind if they keep it like that.
Some people like to min/max, other people don't. If everyone who played BG2 only cared about making the most powerful character then you'd only see Carsomyr-wielding Paladins, Cleric/Rangers dual-wielding Flail of the Ages/Crom Faeyr, Fighter/Thieves dual-wielding Blackrazor/Foebane, etc (I think you get the point).
Certain items/classes/NPCs being ridiculously good is what makes the game special. Changing things like this for the sake of perceived balance would be a mistake.
It doesn't matter what classes are good or not.
Fighter/Druid should be covering the druid spells beyond level 3 that the Ranger can't and that the Cleric/Ranger shouldn't. It doesn't have anything to do with min/maxing. In the same mentality where's my bug to be able to multiclass into a fighter/cleric that can cast berserk and have all the immunities as well, because of it? If you allow one "mistake", why not others?
- Some people like how Cleric/Rangers currently function and go "To hell with the rules!"
- Other people would like Cleric/Rangers to be fixed so that they respect the rules.
Both reasons are perfectly fine for me.
For those commenting on it being a bug, it's a bug that helps balance the game. Ranger/Cleric without their druid spells is just a fighter/cleric with more restrictions and larger experience requirements. Few consider Ranger/Cleric if not for the versatility.
Meanwhile, the argument that druids suck and are obsoleted is a bad one IMHO. They require far, far less experience points to level, have fewer weapon proficiencies, and better high level abilities. In BG I, where high-level abilities don't matter so much, their shapeshifting abilities are much better than they are in BG II (because in BG I, most enemies aren't going to be significantly stronger than a bear). Getting access to higher level spells faster is a big deal as well. Then if you want to talk about kits, the Shapeshifters are going to rule the school in BG I (I know this because you can download shapeshifter fixes to make their powers work correctly).
As for Fighter/Druids, much the same deal here. Fewer restrictions on weapons (in BG I there is no Crom Fayer and Flail of Ages, so the best you're getting is a +2 warhammer, so being able to wield a wider variety of weapons is a bigger deal), and you require significantly less experience to level up, which means you are getting your higher level spells and improved THAC0 and Hp faster before critical battles. In BG II, where Ranger/Clerics might pull ahead, Druids come back with a vengeance with awesome HLAs.
From a balance standpoint, Ranger/Clerics aren't overpowered, and the alternative relegates them to being a class option that no one uses, which makes it not an option at all, and merely clutter. What some people call a bug, I call a feature, because it's seriously the only reason to be a cleric/ranger. You are accepting a greater XP expense for a slightly expanded spell-list. About the only thing that really made Ranger/Clerics stand out when I was running with one in BG II was that they make good tanks thanks to defensive buffs; and honestly good tanks are too hard to find in BG II (in fact, most guides I've seen suggest that AC is useless in BG II, at least during ToB).
Removing the incentives to play a class is pretty pointless when we could be making incentives to play some of the poorer class choices. There are quite a few class kits that could really use some love, and would be time better spent than trying to nerf cleric/rangers for aesthetic reasons and not actual balance reasons.
A significant number of people support the classic Cleric/Ranger, and most players aren't even affected by it, so why change it?
Not all bugs are created equal.
(Which won't happen so you're probably safe).
Edit : Wait what? Are you kidding me? Cleric/Ranger is THE best tank in the game, without using a shield. What does a fighter/cleric do that a cleric/ranger can't do better? He levels up faster as a fighter? Have you seen the progression of a druid? 3m for level 15. Cleric/Ranger is a triple multiclass at the cost of 2 basically, and they make both fighter/clerics and fighter/druids not needed.
If you're a min/maxer you will go for cleric/ranger, not fighter/cleric.
And yes, i am entitled to my opinion, as you are to yours, obviously.
I don't think it's worthless, at all. Having 7th level priest spells, 3rd level druid and the abilities of a fighter plus stealth is useless? Along with the free 2 slots in 2 weapon fighting at early game.
P.S. and off topic - can someone remind me why we can't have elves as cleric/rangers or fighter/clerics? Is it rules or is the engine the problem?
P.S. 2 A very important note : This discussion will be totally different if with the fixes and addons they put in the game, they allow for one kit during multiclass. Because if that happens, then fighters can become berserkers which evens out the classes a lot. Do we know anything about multiclass and kits?