Cleric or Druid?

lespaul00

Potential party is...

Berserker
Dwarven Defender
Bard (not sure on kit)
Thief/Illusionist
Sorcerer
Cleric or Druid

Is a druid viable instead of a cleric long term?

SharGuidesMyHand

Although druids are more useful in IWD than they were in BG, I would still recommend clerics over them since they can turn undead and wear heavier armor.

elminster

Depends. Are you going to be using a good, neutral, or evil cleric? Some pretty helpful cleric spells (like heal, regeneration, raise dead, resurrection, etc) are distributed based on your alignment.

Belanos

Why not both? A half-elf can multi-class a Ranger/Cleric, giving it access to the entire Divine spell list. They're ultimate Divine casters.

lespaul00

Likely a good party. I like the cleric/ranger option and druid. Maybe dump the bard for the druid in that scenario? Dont know if I want my T/I as primary mage though...thus the sorcerer.

CoM_Solaufein

It would be better to have two healer type classes in your party. Something like a fighter/druid would be good. I forgot about that since I hadn't played this game in years. My single healer, a cleric, kept getting killed too many times.

lespaul00

Thanks. So if I dump the sorcerer, which druidkit is best? Unless I go multi.

the_spyder

i am not sure I would dump the Sorcerer. You might need the arcane firepower. I would also recommend a Cleric, but unlike the others, I'd recommend a single class cleric. The reason is that you will really want to be able to deal with undead. There are a LOT of them in the frozen wastes.

CoM_Solaufein

Are you really set on a bard? I would dump them first instead of a sorcerer. You really should have a powerful spellcaster in your party be it a sorcerer or mage.

Zyzzogeton

Bards are fairly good spell casters and regenerate your entire party during battle. Among other things, other amazing things like a super AoE stun.

Sure, Sorcerers are better spellcasters if only for the fact that they don't need scrolls. But unless you're extremely sure of which spells are good you could end up with a borked Sorcerer.

Bards pick up spell slots at a fairly decent rate (given how spells are available in the game) and utilize level scaling spells better

Jarrakul

If I were you, I'd replace the thief/illusionist with a cleric/thief, and then take the druid. I would also use the unkitted bard, because the IWD songs are awesome (Tymora's Melody and War Chant of Sith especially). That will put you mildly light on turn undead, but you'll have all your other bases covered. And, frankly, if you can't deal with the undead the old-fashioned way, you won't be able to deal with the non-undead stuff.

FrozenCells

I went for Cleric/Ranger and Druid. Druids were already really good in IWD and now they have the addition of BG2s nice high level spells. I think it's the better choice than Fighter/Druid and Cleric. Either way, I'd want both.

Shyn

Need defense? Cleric!
Need offense? Avenger!

My Avenger is scoring more kills then my scroll deprived Wild Mage.

(Altho Avengers web + Mage's skull trap is effective)

Jarrakul

I will admit, with Web being more useful because of IWD's encounter structure, and Chromatic Orb being just plain better, Avenger seems like it'd be pretty great. Of course, I'm quite liking my Totem Druid. "What's that, yuan-ti? You don't have magic weapons? How unfortunate for you."

Elendar

Belanos said:

Why not both? A half-elf can multi-class a Ranger/Cleric, giving it access to the entire Divine spell list. They're ultimate Divine casters.

Wrong... there is no ranger/cleric getting access to high level druid spells exploit in IWD:EE. Wont have access to that spell book til the ranger portion is high enough level.

elminster

Elendar said:

Belanos said:

Why not both? A half-elf can multi-class a Ranger/Cleric, giving it access to the entire Divine spell list. They're ultimate Divine casters.

Wrong... there is no ranger/cleric getting access to high level druid spells exploit in IWD:EE. Wont have access to that spell book til the ranger portion is high enough level.

http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/36188/neat-little-option-that-cleric-rangers-players-might-be-interested-in-knowing

meagloth

Hmm... I would probably dual the berserker to druid(CN you do that) at like lvl 4-6, and make the last slot a cleric kit(I'm fond of lathander, the innate hold undead is a real life save In This game). That's just my 2¢.

Klorox

meagloth said:

Hmm... I would probably dual the berserker to druid(CN you do that) at like lvl 4-6, and make the last slot a cleric kit(I'm fond of lathander, the innate hold undead is a real life save In This game). That's just my 2¢.

You should note that a a Druid must be true Neutral, not CN. Also, for a fighter> druid dual, you need a 15 STR and 17 WIS and CHA.

Not the easiest of rolls considering you probably want a high DEX and CON as well.

RAM021

Elendar said:

Belanos said:

Why not both? A half-elf can multi-class a Ranger/Cleric, giving it access to the entire Divine spell list. They're ultimate Divine casters.

Wrong... there is no ranger/cleric getting access to high level druid spells exploit in IWD:EE. Wont have access to that spell book til the ranger portion is high enough level.

1 - not an exploit
2 - by your own admission R/C can get access to high level Druid spells

FrozenCells said:

I went for Cleric/Ranger and Druid. Druids were already really good in IWD and now they have the addition of BG2s nice high level spells. I think it's the better choice than Fighter/Druid and Cleric. Either way, I'd want both.

Agreed, although I went Fighter/Druid & Ranger/Cleric.


@lespaul00‌ Keep your current party setup, dual the Berserker into a Druid and add a Ranger/Cleric ;-)