Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Neverwinter Nights: Enhanced Edition has been released! Visit nwn.beamdog.com to make an order. NWN:EE FAQ is available.
Soundtracks for BG:EE, SoD, BG2:EE, IWD:EE, PST:EE are now available in the Beamdog store.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Opinion of Cleric/Rangers

elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 15,743
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.

Opinion of Cleric/Rangers 390 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%
vetinariConphantusTingelaqzinaDemivrgvsAbelCommunardwissenschaftGrammarsaladDrugarmoody_mageStaglordWinthalJaceBugratBoogeymanelminsterChnapyDaedalus87mMornmagor 137 votes
Yes, some other sort of change is needed to address this imbalance
9%
AntonMERLANCEChippyelementSilenceHawkeTaisharvdoxpNadroirrecklessheartreedmilfamDukeOfSuffolkGricksdosentti666drsahlDarksheerbeerflavouroutyRyknEidolon 36 votes
No
55%
ManveruTanthalasMarkosJames_MsmeagolheartmjellyShYarivkamuizinSikorskyAkerhonSarevokokMajocamlneveseRhukZafiroGemHoundGoatBoySteveMokStargazer5781Medillen 217 votes
MoomintrollSeranIllustair
«13456789

Comments

  • ZafiroZafiro Member Posts: 436
    edited August 2012
    No
    I know it's not right, but I really love it; in any game that has druids, I play it the most. I never liked Priest/Cleric before BG, I'll always love the Druid more, even when its not so great or nerfed. Yet in BG, I like R/C as a mix of all 3 classes for they seem close enough. But wont be the end of the world if they change it.

    Quartz
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 15,743
    edited August 2012
    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)
    Zafiro said:

    I know it's not right, but I really love it; in any game that has druids, I play it the most. I never liked Priest/Cleric before BG, I'll always love the Druid more, even when its not so great or nerfed. Yet in BG, I like R/C as a mix of all 3 classes for they seem close enough. But wont be the end of the world if they change it.

    No worries I'm just curious of people's opinions. Ugh, I can't believe I wrote BG:EE2 instead of BG2:EE. Maybe I am a little dyslexic.

    Post edited by elminster on
  • Roller12Roller12 Member Posts: 437
    No
    While cleric/ranger is a good class, its still weaker than actually powerful characters so doesnt need any change. It would totally kill the class in favor of fighter/cleric who is better at everything. Having access to stoneskin is not that great and outstanding as you might think because all kinds of mage multiclasses get access to it to, and more importantly is has a long casting time, so unlike the real stoneskin a cleric/ranger has troubles to recast it during combat because he will be interrupted. He has no protection against imprisonment and dispel either, so ends up pretty mediocre actually. But still better than plain fighters true.


    The last thing this game needs is a melee nerf. And playing Ran->Cle dual class is of doubtful usefulness in any case.

  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 15,743
    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)
    Roller12 said:

    While cleric/ranger is a good class, its still weaker than actually powerful characters so doesnt need any change. It would totally kill the class in favor of fighter/cleric who is better at everything. Having access to stoneskin is not that great and outstanding as you might think because all kinds of mage multiclasses get access to it to, and more importantly is has a long casting time, so unlike the real stoneskin a cleric/ranger has troubles to recast it during combat because he will be interrupted. He has no protection against imprisonment and dispel either, so ends up pretty mediocre actually. But still better than plain fighters true.


    The last thing this game needs is a melee nerf. And playing Ran->Cle dual class is of doubtful usefulness in any case.

    I know that in the game itself the spell description says it takes one round to cast Iron Skins, but I just cast it and it was as quick as stoneskin. I'm assuming on of the fixpacks changed Iron Skins back to one round then?

  • BlaveBlave Member Posts: 38
    No
    elminster said:

    I know that in the game itself the spell description says it takes one round to cast Iron Skins, but I just cast it and it was as quick as stoneskin. I'm assuming on of the fixpacks changed Iron Skins back to one round then?

    Yes, it's 1 round in my game, too. Probably due to the G3Fixpack.

  • Roller12Roller12 Member Posts: 437
    No
    Well yes in fully patched BG2 fixpacked, which i assume will be the basis for this game, it isnt instacast just checked. Cant say about vanilla, it had bigger issues, cast 4 times armor of faith and be immune to everything.

    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.

  • CheesebellyCheesebelly Member Posts: 1,727
    No
    I'd rather keep it as it is. It's really the only reason as to why take a Cleric/Ranger over Fighter/Cleric (I believe in Icewind Dale this was fixed, so I strongly believe it was BioWare's original intention to give a boost to C/R)
    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.

  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 15,743
    edited August 2012
    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)
    Roller12 said:

    Well yes in fully patched BG2 fixpacked, which i assume will be the basis for this game, it isnt instacast just checked. Cant say about vanilla, it had bigger issues, cast 4 times armor of faith and be immune to everything.

    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.

    I believe it has been established that BG2 spells will be included in the game. The experience cap I imagine will decide in part what can be accessed. So pure druids will be able to get level 5 druid spells in BG:EE, whereas C/R's will only get 4th level spells in BG:EE (assuming the experience cap remains around the same as what it is in TOTSC).

  • QuartzQuartz Member Posts: 3,773
    No
    Blave said:

    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.

    This. Seriously, I'm so tired of people pulling the "multiplayer" card on this issue. It's not like BG will have some sort of competitive multiplayer environment, so what gives?

    TehCerealKillerMedillenBlave
  • TehCerealKillerTehCerealKiller Member Posts: 56
    No
    Quartz said:

    Blave said:

    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.

    This. Seriously, I'm so tired of people pulling the "multiplayer" card on this issue. It's not like BG will have some sort of competitive multiplayer environment, so what gives?

    Also how many people play with randoms anymore anyway? I hardly ever do in anything that only has a handful of player slots. Though for the epicness that is the BG series I just might make an exception so I can see how other people roll because I've only seen 3 other people play this besides me.

  • MornmagorMornmagor Member Posts: 1,160
    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)
    Rules are rules. There's nothing else to be said about it.

    elminsterKienaItomon
  • SceptenarSceptenar Member Posts: 606
    No
    The druid spells are pretty much the only reason to play a ranger/cleric over a fighter/cleric in my opinion.

    XavioriaFelix
  • MoomintrollMoomintroll Member Posts: 1,481
    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)
    Thanks for making this a poll, I'm amazed by the results and never would have guessed so many people would be pro.

    elminster
  • MedillenMedillen Member Posts: 632
    No
    I think it was my suggestion to make it a poll. I'm surprised by the quantity of "pro". Such change will simply nerf the class into oblivion. It's not even the best around (while it is good) and there are, in my opinions, far more important balance issue. Kensai/thief or mage anyone ?

    Quartz
  • MoomintrollMoomintroll Member Posts: 1,481
    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)
    This is confusing, why I say pro I mean "pro-keeping it how it is." If the poll title were a question, then the "no" option might make more sense.

    elminster
  • jesbranjesbran Member Posts: 5
    No
    Mornmagor said:

    Rules are rules. There's nothing else to be said about it.

    In order for that statement to be true, you have to first demonstrate that the correct course of action from a gameplay and a developer perspective is to enforce the rule framework in all situations, regardless of its implications.

    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.

  • JolanthusJolanthus Member Posts: 292
    No
    Mornmagor said:

    Rules are rules. There's nothing else to be said about it.

    Since rules are rules, would you be adverse to adding the racial level caps as well?

    QuartzFlashburnmetaentity
  • moody_magemoody_mage Member Posts: 2,051
    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)
    Fix it. It's an exploit. End of.

    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.

    CommunardJaxsbudgie
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 15,743
    edited August 2012
    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)
    Yes I just looked it up was your suggestion @Medillen.

    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.

    Moomintroll
  • MornmagorMornmagor Member Posts: 1,160
    edited August 2012
    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)
    Jolanthus said:

    Mornmagor said:

    Rules are rules. There's nothing else to be said about it.

    Since rules are rules, would you be adverse to adding the racial level caps as well?
    Yes, if you want to play 2nd edition, play it with the rules, or else change it. The levels caps are inconvenient for reaching Throne of Bhaal content anyway.

    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?

    MoomintrollCommunardNot_the_Pope
  • gloinunitgloinunit Member Posts: 25
    No
    Straight up Druids aren't that good, so the fact that the Cleric/Ranger multiclass is better than a Druid shouldn't be the rationale for nerfing Cleric/Ranger.

    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.

    Quartz
  • MornmagorMornmagor Member Posts: 1,160
    edited August 2012
    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)
    I never said druid. I said fighter/druid.

    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.

    MoomintrollQuartz
  • MoomintrollMoomintroll Member Posts: 1,481
    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)
    Preserving classic content should not include bugs.

  • gloinunitgloinunit Member Posts: 25
    No
    Mornmagor said:

    I never said druid. I said fighter/druid.

    If your class is strong because of a bug and you like it like that, well nice for you, what can i say.

    I wasn't responding to you directly, but I can.
    Mornmagor said:

    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.

    Exactly
    Mornmagor said:

    What's the point of fighter/druid anyway, if i can have cleric/ranger with druid spells?

    What's the point of playing Beastmaster?

    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.

    Quartz
  • MornmagorMornmagor Member Posts: 1,160
    edited August 2012
    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)
    I don't think this discussion is heading anywhere to be honest, the fact is and will be that this type of min/maxing is because of a bug.

    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?

    Communard
  • TanthalasTanthalas Member Posts: 6,738
    No
    I don't think this discussion should be about people trying to convince others that their opinions are wrong. People are just voting on what they want and providing their reasons.

    - 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.

  • AshielAshiel Member Posts: 254
    No
    D&D has never been balanced to begin with. Ever. But for all those folks arguing about rules and such, we should also earn 1 XP point for every gold piece we acquire, and every magic item we acquire. That's in the AD&D 2E rules as well.

    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.

    QuartzFelixOxford_Guysecretfire
  • gloinunitgloinunit Member Posts: 25
    edited August 2012
    No
    Mornmagor said:

    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?

    If you think that making a class combination worthless in order to satisfy 2e rules (that aren't followed in many other places) is acceptable, then you're entitled to that opinion. But once you consider that it's not even one of the best classes in the game even with high level druid spells, it becomes a ridiculous discussion to be having.

    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.

    secretfire
  • MornmagorMornmagor Member Posts: 1,160
    edited August 2012
    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)
    Well, if they decide to touch cleric/rangers, they should at least balance everything else as well, i agree.

    (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?

    Post edited by Mornmagor on
Sign In or Register to comment.