@Gallowglass: The proficiency points simply mean the Ranger can spend a couple more in another weapon. It's a slight bonus to the Ranger/Cleric's versatility. It might not be a game-changer, but it's there.
@kamuizin: Archers get grandmastery in missile weapons because they only get ONE proficiency in melee weapons. The Archer gets bonuses to missile combat and penalties to melee combat because that's the whole point of the Archer kit, to specialize in ranged weapons at the expense of melee weapons. The Archer gets grandmastery in missile weapons because that's the concept behind the kit.
@Gallowglass: The proficiency points simply mean the Ranger can spend a couple more in another weapon. It's a slight bonus to the Ranger/Cleric's versatility. It might not be a game-changer, but it's there.
Er, not really. It's not as if you can somehow transfer those two points into some other ability - either you use them for dual-wielding, or you don't use them at all. And if (as I argue above) this isn't a suitable case for a dual-wielding build, then those points are basically wasted.
Ranger at level 7: ** Flail ** Hammer ** Mace ** Two-Weapon Fighting ** Club
If we plan on dual-wielding, then the Ranger can specialize in one additional weapon, in this case clubs. If you don't plan on dual-wielding, then the pips are irrelevant, as you said. I already said that, too.
As for why a dual-class Fighter or Ranger to Cleric would want to dual-wield in the first place... it is because the bonuses from Defender of Easthaven should stack with Armor of Faith, unless they changed that in EE. A Ranger/Cleric or Fighter/Cleric would do well with the DoE in the off hand. In mid-game SoA, AoF and DoE will together give 40% damage resistance, while AoF alone will give only 20%. This is a significant bonus, in my opinion, to the character's survivability.
So why not simply use DoE in the main hand, and use a shield for even more defense? In the example I gave, the F/C can use the FoA, Crom Faeyr, and Mace of Disruption in the main hand. The R/C can do that as well, plus Gnasher or Blackblood. Those are good offensive options. There is a good use for dual-wielding, and many different weapon types that are worth investing in, so the two pips are beneficial. Your Fighter/Clerics and Ranger/Clerics might not dual-wield, but mine do, and I'm not alone in that.
Some Fighter/Clerics and Ranger/Clerics dual-wield. For those that do, the Ranger can spend a couple pips elsewhere. For those that don't, the pips are wasted. We agree on that much.
Some Fighter/Clerics and Ranger/Clerics dual-wield. For those that do, the Ranger can spend a couple pips elsewhere. For those that don't, the pips are wasted. We agree on that much.
If you're now talking about the comparison between a multi-class R/C and a multi-class F/C, then yes, and I'd already mentioned that dual-wielding would be sensible in that case. For the multi-class, I do it dual-wielding too.
However, this thread is about planning a dual-class R->C (not a multi-class), and my argument that dual-classing is unsuitable (see above) refers specifically to the dual-class. I therefore reckon that the Ranger's extra two points in 2WS are pretty useless for the dual-class.
So @semiticgod made the indisputable point that two free pips in Two Weapon Style are useful if you're planning on dual-wielding, and @Gallowglass doesn't think an R->C ought to dual-wield. OK.
@Gallowglass: The proficiency points simply mean the Ranger can spend a couple more in another weapon. It's a slight bonus to the Ranger/Cleric's versatility. It might not be a game-changer, but it's there.
@kamuizin: Archers get grandmastery in missile weapons because they only get ONE proficiency in melee weapons. The Archer gets bonuses to missile combat and penalties to melee combat because that's the whole point of the Archer kit, to specialize in ranged weapons at the expense of melee weapons. The Archer gets grandmastery in missile weapons because that's the concept behind the kit.
Ok, not trying to be offensive (cos sometimes i just don't know how to properly express my thoughts in english) , you said the obvious. So... what's wrong with give them grandmastery access to any weapon that can go missile? I say any weapon that can be ranged cos i believe by engine limits you can't restrict the grandmastery for ranged use of the weapon only (unfortunally), otherwise that would be the best scenario.
So, weapons that can go ranged are: short/long/crossbow, slings, dagger, dart, axes, war hammers.
From this list, only slings and war hammers are usable by clerics.
If the engine can make any proficience point past one be restricted to ranged use of the weapon, all the better.
Rangers get two free points in Two-Weapon Fighting. A Ranger/Cleric gets two more proficiency points than a Fighter/Cleric, if he or she is planning on dual-wielding. So it's not just an issue of a Ranger/Cleric's druid spells.
Well, okay, they do get the two free points ... but no, I don't think that really makes much difference to the argument.
If you're dualling out of Ranger, then you're probably not building a character designed for front-row melee (especially now that you can't make up for weaker melee abilities by casting Iron Skins from the Druid spells). It'll be a character mostly for standing well back and either casting spells or using his sling, fighting in melee only when occasionally necessary ... and a Fighter->Cleric could do that significantly better by being more proficient with his sling.
If you want to retain serious melee competence into the later stages, then you ought to be a multi-class Ranger/Cleric, not a dual-class Ranger->Cleric. For the multi-class, yes, dual-wielding is a sensible route to take ... but the dual-class ought to carry a shield, or at least ought to go two-handed and try to use the extra reach to fight in melee from behind a proper melee warrior who can absorb most of the enemy's hits. Sacrificing AC in order to dual-wield is a sensible plan only for characters who will be sufficiently good at melee that the enemy will fall before he can hurt you too badly, and a character dualled out of Ranger (unless we're talking about a ridiculously late dual) won't have the THAC0 to be very good at this. Even if you insist upon building a dual-wielding Warrior->Cleric, a Fighter->Cleric will again be significantly better at it than a Ranger->Cleric, because he can master his weapons.
So even with two free points in dual-wielding, I don't see a case for ever again building a Ranger->Cleric, because a Fighter->Cleric will always be better (except for stealth, which isn't important enough to make the difference). Even the case for a multi-class Ranger/Cleric (which used to be a very good class because of the extra Druid spells) is now much weaker, since a multi-class Fighter/Cleric levels faster.
These seem weak points. A dual R>C should definitely dual wield and can have a strong thaco via cleric buffs (should actually be a better thaco than a multiclass due to higher cleric level).
In the multiclass case the 2 free pips actually make a huge difference until deep into SoA as it lets you use the best weapon combination in BG1 and BG2 (mace+hammer in bg1, flail+? in bg2). A multi fighter/cleric has to get to fighter 12 for the same pips. Which doesn't even consider a pip or two in sling.
Pips on a dual are more complicated. Generally the extra 2 pips isn't going to make a big difference as you get pips from both classes.
In conclusion, ranger/cleric multi is still a strong choice next to fighter/cleric multi. The dual lost a lot with the spell access change but it was a massive exploit anyway. I mean, how can you justify accessing all Druid spells when you can't even cast spells as a ranger at level 7?
@kamuizin: Agreed. An Archer/Cleric should be able to get grandmastery in War Hammers and Slings, since both can be used as ranged weapons. Darts as well; in vanilla at least an Archer could only put two pips in Darts for some reason, even though they're exclusively ranged weapons. Unfortunately, we can't give grandmastery bonuses to throwing hammers while withholding them from melee hammers, due an engine limitation. Your English is fine, by the way.
You could tweak the Archer kit to be able to max out their pips in War Hammers and Slings. The only side effect is that melee hammers would also benefit, but I think that would be okay.
Are there any throwing hammers in EE, or is there still only just the Dwarven Thrower?
@subtledoctor: Well, I wouldn't expect GM in melee hammers to matter for an Archer because the Archer wouldn't be using melee hammers, only throwing hammers. The player would keep them at the back, as usual, since their AC is poor and they wouldn't get the kit bonuses for melee hammers, even if they got the GM bonuses.
It would be an exploit, but I don't think most people would use it anyway. I don't think I would use melee hammers as an Archer, even if I could get GM in it.
The hint is in the name - Archer - they specialize in bows, not ranged weapons in general
I would love a kit that did specialize in slings or throw weapons, possibly a halfing kit to match the dwarf-only defender (halflings have few enough options as it is). I would love a halfiing cleric kit that got to master slings, for example - that would be a neat reason to play an underutilized race/class combo. Note that fighter/cleric is NOT permitted for halflings, their clerics are pure-class only.
I have decided to make a ranger dualled to cleric as my next play through and have a few questions I'm hoping someone can answer.
1. what is the best level to dual at (i will be playing a mostly 6 person party), do i need a certain level to get all druid spells?
2. if i take the evil option for +2 strength in hell i become a fallen ranger does this mean i lose out on druid spells or my weapon profs or thaco?
3. what is the best racial enemy to choose?
Anywho getting back to what OP was asking about.
1. 7 or 9. Going with 9 would be a good idea.
2. Yes you would fall. You would lose your spells and activable abilities. If you were a ranger/cleric when you fell then you'd lose access to druid spells.
3. I'd probably go with Dragons. You face enough of them in the game that you'll get use out of it. Plus they tend to have very low AC.
1. Dual at 7 if you start in BG1, 9 if you start in BG2. There is enough exp in BG2 even early on in the game that the benefit of going 9 over 7 FAR outweighs the cost. Don't do 13 in full parties, it's just not worth it; you COULD consider it in solo runs, though (personally I think it's still not worth it though).
2. Fallen ranger = lose all ranger-specific abilities and essentially become a fighter. IIRC you retain weapon proficiencies, but not spells/special abilities etc.
3. This depends on mods and personal play style. Whatever you think you'll have the most trouble hitting consistently. Dragons is a fine option. Vampires, Beholders, or Ilithid are also decent choices because they tend to be the most annoying enemies you encounter throughout the game.
1 & 2. I would rather recommend starting with a Fighter or Berserker, then dual into a cleric at level 9. The ranger/cleric dual was pretty much broken with the last EE patch. I think this is a fix they should NOT have made. Although, a stalker/cleric would be interesting considering the bonus mage-spells stalkers get.
With Fighter as the 1st class, going dark side in Hell isn't a big deal.
Example: In BP2, I currently have a Berserker 10/Cleric 30. He's a GM in hammers and dual-wields Crom Faeyr in the main hand, and a regular +3 warhammer in the off-hand. His THAC0 is -10/-6 and he has 171 hp with 16 Con. He is my main tank along with my monk. I don't think he suffers greatly having lost fighter-HLA's, since he gets DUHM+AoF and other awesome stuff as replacements.
I personally enjoy dualing more than multiclassing. It's more straightforward, and less gimmicky. A dual will pop DUHM+AoF and they are ready to fight. A multi will still need to pop 2 more things to achieve maximum efficiency. Namely Hardiness+GWW. You don't need to but it feels like waste of talent if you don't.
3. The racial enemy thing is more flavor than anything else, IMO. I think you should choose this mostly based on what you have trouble with on low levels. On high level enemies like Dragons, Beholders, Demons and such, that bonus you get doesn't matter as much. Mostly because you are also high level when facing these enemies, and thus the small bonus isn't a make-or-break deal.
Personally I always choose something like golem, vampire or elemental because you face these enemies much earlier than dragons. That bonus counts much more in this point of the game.
PS. If a cleric goes from good to evil in the Hell-trials, do his spells also change from holy to unholy? I've never went darkside with a cleric.
To me the dual-classing mechanic seems to be the most gimmicky thing about the whole ruleset.
I kind of love dual-classing, but it is gimmicky as hell, especially when UAI gets involved. Think of wielding Carsomyr with grandmastery, having a Cleric who's specialized in scimitars and dual-wielding Belm and Scarlet Ninja-to, or backstabbing with Staff of the Ram with grandmastery and a x7 modifier. I don't know what else you can call those except gimmicks.
I find both equally "boring", in the sense that you just pick the good parts of both classes and build your hybrid from there. Dual is simply more customizable than multi (because you can shift around the XP unequally, and because of kit bonuses). There isn't a whole paradigmatic difference, really, it's mostly fairly marginal min/max stuff (in BG2 anyway). Towards the end of the game the differences are very small.
Of course, I also highly enjoy the ability to customize things, and play around with intricate systems like dual-classing. Wouldn't mind it being even MORE intricate, but I'll take what I can get.
It's not always marginal. Take the example of dualling a level 25 Swashbuckler specializing in scimitars to a Cleric. With 18 strength, you end up with a level 28 Cleric that has 4 attacks per round, THAC0 -4/-1, damage 13-20/12-19, and AC 0, all before buffs and wearing no equipment. That's a wildly different character than any C/T multi-class. It's obviously an extreme example; I'm just saying that the differences aren't necessarily small.
Whatever argument I make in whatever spot, someone is sure to come along and point out the fringe cases that don't quite fit.
Yes, you're 100% correct. There are cases where it's different. They are weird, freaky cases, but they do exist, and they should not be simply overlooked or brushed over by generalized statements. In fact, any sort of statement should include a two-page addendum that lists the five-thousand-three-hundred-and-ninety-two-point-four exceptions that have so far been discovered.
Generalizations are made for a reason. They provide information useful to a ludicrously large portion of the audience, PARTICULARLY people that aren't interested in the detailed fringe case explanations (because people who are, are usually inquisitive enough to either find out on their own or ask specific questions). Overloading everyone with information or adding caveats to every sentence just confuses people even further.
And by people* I of course mean a very specific, narrow demographic of readers (and listeners, for the visually-impaired) that come with broad questions and a shaky understanding of things to begin with.
*"People" is not limited to humans, but all entities, corporeal, fictional, or otherwise, that are capable of absorbing and/or processing the information posted here.
I kind of love dual-classing, but it is gimmicky as hell, especially when UAI gets involved. Think of wielding Carsomyr with grandmastery, having a Cleric who's specialized in scimitars and dual-wielding Belm and Scarlet Ninja-to, or backstabbing with Staff of the Ram with grandmastery and a x7 modifier. I don't know what else you can call those except gimmicks.
@mrb101 If they get Use Any Item as a thief before dual-classing, then they can. That was the point of that example, that dual-classing allows for some very atypical abilities.
@Lord_Tansheron Wow, I never realized how irresponsible I was being by posting accurate information. In the future, I'll try to serve the community better by sticking to exaggerations and simplistic half-truths.
@Lord_Tansheron@joluv: These sorts of debates are the best way for us to learn. If we point out inaccuracies or simply pose a different opinion, we will be delivering more information to the people who read this stuff. There's nothing wrong with making a mistake and there's nothing wrong with pointing one out.
@Lord_Tansheron: No worries. You make the generalizations, we'll point out the exceptions. That way, people reading this will see both the big picture and the little details.
Comments
@kamuizin: Archers get grandmastery in missile weapons because they only get ONE proficiency in melee weapons. The Archer gets bonuses to missile combat and penalties to melee combat because that's the whole point of the Archer kit, to specialize in ranged weapons at the expense of melee weapons. The Archer gets grandmastery in missile weapons because that's the concept behind the kit.
"A Ranger/Cleric gets two more proficiency points than a Fighter/Cleric, if he or she is planning on dual-wielding."
Fighter at level 7:
** Flail
** Hammer
** Mace
** Two-Weapon Fighting
Ranger at level 7:
** Flail
** Hammer
** Mace
** Two-Weapon Fighting
** Club
If we plan on dual-wielding, then the Ranger can specialize in one additional weapon, in this case clubs. If you don't plan on dual-wielding, then the pips are irrelevant, as you said. I already said that, too.
As for why a dual-class Fighter or Ranger to Cleric would want to dual-wield in the first place... it is because the bonuses from Defender of Easthaven should stack with Armor of Faith, unless they changed that in EE. A Ranger/Cleric or Fighter/Cleric would do well with the DoE in the off hand. In mid-game SoA, AoF and DoE will together give 40% damage resistance, while AoF alone will give only 20%. This is a significant bonus, in my opinion, to the character's survivability.
So why not simply use DoE in the main hand, and use a shield for even more defense? In the example I gave, the F/C can use the FoA, Crom Faeyr, and Mace of Disruption in the main hand. The R/C can do that as well, plus Gnasher or Blackblood. Those are good offensive options. There is a good use for dual-wielding, and many different weapon types that are worth investing in, so the two pips are beneficial. Your Fighter/Clerics and Ranger/Clerics might not dual-wield, but mine do, and I'm not alone in that.
Some Fighter/Clerics and Ranger/Clerics dual-wield. For those that do, the Ranger can spend a couple pips elsewhere. For those that don't, the pips are wasted. We agree on that much.
However, this thread is about planning a dual-class R->C (not a multi-class), and my argument that dual-classing is unsuitable (see above) refers specifically to the dual-class. I therefore reckon that the Ranger's extra two points in 2WS are pretty useless for the dual-class.
So, weapons that can go ranged are: short/long/crossbow, slings, dagger, dart, axes, war hammers.
From this list, only slings and war hammers are usable by clerics.
If the engine can make any proficience point past one be restricted to ranged use of the weapon, all the better.
In the multiclass case the 2 free pips actually make a huge difference until deep into SoA as it lets you use the best weapon combination in BG1 and BG2 (mace+hammer in bg1, flail+? in bg2). A multi fighter/cleric has to get to fighter 12 for the same pips. Which doesn't even consider a pip or two in sling.
Pips on a dual are more complicated. Generally the extra 2 pips isn't going to make a big difference as you get pips from both classes.
In conclusion, ranger/cleric multi is still a strong choice next to fighter/cleric multi. The dual lost a lot with the spell access change but it was a massive exploit anyway. I mean, how can you justify accessing all Druid spells when you can't even cast spells as a ranger at level 7?
You could tweak the Archer kit to be able to max out their pips in War Hammers and Slings. The only side effect is that melee hammers would also benefit, but I think that would be okay.
Are there any throwing hammers in EE, or is there still only just the Dwarven Thrower?
It would be an exploit, but I don't think most people would use it anyway. I don't think I would use melee hammers as an Archer, even if I could get GM in it.
I would love a kit that did specialize in slings or throw weapons, possibly a halfing kit to match the dwarf-only defender (halflings have few enough options as it is). I would love a halfiing cleric kit that got to master slings, for example - that would be a neat reason to play an underutilized race/class combo. Note that fighter/cleric is NOT permitted for halflings, their clerics are pure-class only.
1. 7 or 9. Going with 9 would be a good idea.
2. Yes you would fall. You would lose your spells and activable abilities. If you were a ranger/cleric when you fell then you'd lose access to druid spells.
3. I'd probably go with Dragons. You face enough of them in the game that you'll get use out of it. Plus they tend to have very low AC.
2. Fallen ranger = lose all ranger-specific abilities and essentially become a fighter. IIRC you retain weapon proficiencies, but not spells/special abilities etc.
3. This depends on mods and personal play style. Whatever you think you'll have the most trouble hitting consistently. Dragons is a fine option. Vampires, Beholders, or Ilithid are also decent choices because they tend to be the most annoying enemies you encounter throughout the game.
With Fighter as the 1st class, going dark side in Hell isn't a big deal.
Example: In BP2, I currently have a Berserker 10/Cleric 30. He's a GM in hammers and dual-wields Crom Faeyr in the main hand, and a regular +3 warhammer in the off-hand. His THAC0 is -10/-6 and he has 171 hp with 16 Con. He is my main tank along with my monk. I don't think he suffers greatly having lost fighter-HLA's, since he gets DUHM+AoF and other awesome stuff as replacements.
I personally enjoy dualing more than multiclassing. It's more straightforward, and less gimmicky. A dual will pop DUHM+AoF and they are ready to fight. A multi will still need to pop 2 more things to achieve maximum efficiency. Namely Hardiness+GWW. You don't need to but it feels like waste of talent if you don't.
3. The racial enemy thing is more flavor than anything else, IMO. I think you should choose this mostly based on what you have trouble with on low levels. On high level enemies like Dragons, Beholders, Demons and such, that bonus you get doesn't matter as much. Mostly because you are also high level when facing these enemies, and thus the small bonus isn't a make-or-break deal.
Personally I always choose something like golem, vampire or elemental because you face these enemies much earlier than dragons. That bonus counts much more in this point of the game.
PS. If a cleric goes from good to evil in the Hell-trials, do his spells also change from holy to unholy? I've never went darkside with a cleric.
Of course, I also highly enjoy the ability to customize things, and play around with intricate systems like dual-classing. Wouldn't mind it being even MORE intricate, but I'll take what I can get.
Yes, you're 100% correct. There are cases where it's different. They are weird, freaky cases, but they do exist, and they should not be simply overlooked or brushed over by generalized statements. In fact, any sort of statement should include a two-page addendum that lists the five-thousand-three-hundred-and-ninety-two-point-four exceptions that have so far been discovered.
And by people* I of course mean a very specific, narrow demographic of readers (and listeners, for the visually-impaired) that come with broad questions and a shaky understanding of things to begin with.
*"People" is not limited to humans, but all entities, corporeal, fictional, or otherwise, that are capable of absorbing and/or processing the information posted here.
@Lord_Tansheron Wow, I never realized how irresponsible I was being by posting accurate information. In the future, I'll try to serve the community better by sticking to exaggerations and simplistic half-truths.
@Lord_Tansheron: No worries. You make the generalizations, we'll point out the exceptions. That way, people reading this will see both the big picture and the little details.