Ranger/Clerics no longer get Druid spells?
sparrow13x
Member Posts: 120
Hey guys, I just started playing again on my iPad after a year or so and a few hours into my solo Ranger/Cleric I realized that I wasn't getting staple spells like Insect Swarm or Iron Skins like I used to. This was my favourite class back in the day and I'm having a hard time deciding what to play so I just went with ol' reliable.
Is this intentional? I don't know if it was originally a bug but it made the class have its own flavour compared to a Fighter/Cleric. If it's intentional, is there any fix for it on iOS?
Thanks for any help!
Is this intentional? I don't know if it was originally a bug but it made the class have its own flavour compared to a Fighter/Cleric. If it's intentional, is there any fix for it on iOS?
Thanks for any help!
0
Comments
'Game Options', 'Cleric Ranger Spells', '1' - to zero.
When I first bought the game a while back the Ranger/Cleric was untouched so they must have patched it in later? I guess the fact that they used to get Druid spells was probably not intentional but I didn't think it was game-breaking either. I mean yeah, getting Iron Skins was nice, but other than that and a few other utility spells they weren't much different than a Fighter/Cleric. The class felt unique compared to other multis.
I wish they had left this one bug alone.
Rangers and Cleric/Rangers still get Druid spells - I can see that spells in level 1-4 are the same Druid spells as what Jaheira has. All the Druid level 5 spells are missing from the Cleric/Ranger's spellbook. That is wierd. Gonna fix that... UPDATE: I did "fix that" but, on second thought, gonna try to complete SoA without using Iron Skins or other level 5+ Druid spells. Basically rest more often and use Righteous Magic instead. Jaheira may just end-up as the party leader (so "protagonist by Jaheira's side" rather than "Jaheira by my side").
@Avenger_teambg - so far as I know, yes. To test, I just now created one in ToB, and it had level 1-3 Druid spells (and loads of Cleric spells) as expected. However, I haven't tried getting to the appropriate level of Ranger by actually playing one through, since before the patch in which Druid spells were restricted. (And in fact, I doubt I'll ever use that class again, since it was only ever the "bug" which made it a worthwhile alternative to a F/C.)
Of course the latter is more logical, but the trouble is that fixing the logic has removed the main point of being a C/R at all. It's gone from being an exceptionally strong class (okay, yes, perhaps too strong) to being a pretty pointless class, all in one move, which is a very severe nerf. I'd have been fine with enforcing the more logical model if there had been a way to make the effect less drastic, but there's no obvious way they could have done that, it's an all-or-nothing issue. Since the less logical version was very well-established as a quirk of the game for all these years, I'd rather they had just announced that they had decided to leave it alone. But never mind, what's done is done.
Dual-class, the story is very different. I'd NEVER dual from a Ranger into a Cleric; there is almost no reason to do this, given that the Ranger kit bonuses aren't stellar (except Archer, which can't dual) and you don't have Grand Mastery either way. You very slightly shift the XP balance towards the Cleric part, but at higher levels that is practically irrelevant - especially considering you pay for it by not having access to fighter HLAs.
Dualing from Fighter, on the other hand, is much better. You gain some very good kit bonuses, and most importantly access to Grand Mastery. You do lose Fighter HLAs here as well, but that isn't that big a deal considering you can get naturally high APR from GM. It's not an automatic win over the multiclass, but you could make a very good argument for it being the better option.
I explained the point for the benefit of the OP, who evidently hadn't been aware of the history of this change, but I SAID "never mind, what's done is done". It's you who is continuing to re-hash. R->C is a different issue, let's not muddy the waters.
Of course C/R is still playable if you want, so I didn't say it wasn't "viable". I described it above as "pointless" because it's no longer nearly so distinctive, it's much more like a F/C now, and IMO a slightly inferior version of a F/C (mainly because F/C levels faster and further).
Now it's my turn to say "let's seriously not rehash the debate about this", because it's already been discussed extensively in that previous thread to which you refer.
Incidentally, I assume that part of this fix is that the Cleric/Ranger gets up to three additional level 1, 2 and 3 spell slots as they should? I confess I've not yet checked.
Sure, Rangers are versed in the outdoors, but there's more to being able to use high-level nature-based magic than just knowing your way around the woods.
Anyway to your question, a single class Ranger gets 3 spell slots in level 1, 2 and 3 (I assume from your answer they are indeed granted to the Cleric/Ranger now?). I think in those spellslots, they should (and do? I don't play single class) have access to druid spells in the spell slots available to them. It "makes sense" that Rangers are nature oriented guys who don't spend much time learning magic, but what magic they get is nature oriented.
A Cleric/Ranger, on the other hand, gets up to level 7 spell slots, and in terms of the character, the divide between "ranger slots" and "cleric slots" is largely artificial, particularly in Baldur's Gate. They just have "X spell slots". The idea that their divine spells are influenced by their affiliation with nature as an overall "Ranger/Cleric person" makes just as much sense as the idea that an evil cleric gets different spells to a good one.
So here is a cleric who is more focused on fighting - but less than Fighters - and focused on divine casting - More than anyone else, since she has two divine caster classes, with some focus on both Spiritual (cleric) and Natural (druid) domains.
As a result, she gave up some spell casting power (which otherwise for C/Rs should have been 12/12/12/9/9/7/3 at cap, as it is now) to instead use spells from both sides.
That's a cool character theme, and I am posing that it makes sense (is logical). The issue with Cleric/Ranger casting has always been strictly mechanical, not logical, and even then, it's only a mechanical issue within the game, not AD&D as a whole where clerics aren't restricted to one specific spell list.
@subtledoctor You're quite right I'm thinking in terms of sphere access, and I've certainly been eyeing your mods with great interest for my next playthrough, since it feels like that's how it should have been in the beginning.
At least Multiclass fighters are pointless and terrible (because learning to stop time and turn into an illithid is apparently easier than learning to attack once more often every twelve seconds with a club) so the Cleric/Ranger is only mildly worse, but it's still not getting nearly what it's supposed to.
I would however definitely say that they are one of the best multiclasses, if not the best.
So yeah, while Cleric/Ranger offers less than it should, the only reason not to be Cleric/Ranger instead of Fighter/Cleric is to be one of the better (short) races, because Fighter offers nothing at all a Ranger doesn't.
I'm not sure I agree with your list, however.
While you're correct that it does give them the widest variety of cleric spells available of any class, their increased spell access does not give them the second widest variety of spells. An extra 6 spells do not put them ahead of any mage class.
Secondly, I would suggest all but one or two of these extra spells are largely forgettable. Level 1 and 2 druid spells are terrible, and level 3 Druid Spells are gained at 2.4 million XP "when the ranger would gain access to them". At 2.4 million XP, the cleric/ranger can cast level 6 spells, being able to cast Call Lightning and Summon Insects (the lame one that requires a save) is not significantly better than the Holy Smites the C/R probably used in abundance the first 12 levels of their character.
Stealth, I would argue, isn't important, because Clerics get Sanctuary. With Sanctuary they can scout, loot, and cast pre-buff spells (including Find Traps) without becoming "visible" again. All stealth offers is more micromanagement or leather armour wearing.
Extra proficiencies works out to 1 extra pip over a Fighter/Cleric by cap. It's nice, but hardly a deal breaker towards mid-SoA since any cleric which only needs a fraction of the proficiencies they get to be effective.
Likewise, I would put them third in terms of APR. TWF single/dual classed Fighters > Non-cleric TWF fighter multiclasses (since they can offhand APR increasing items) > TWF Warrior/Clerics & non-TWFers > Non-Warriors.
So yeah, they can Scout, heal (am I the only one who never preps healing spells on my clerics?), buff, tank, DPS and bomb... Just about as well as the Fighter/Cleric in all those things, and they have to be the second worst race instead of dwarf/gnomes (better tanks thanks to Con and shorty saves) or half-orcs (better DPS thanks to higher natural Strength, potentially saving Crom Faeyr for someone else). I'd enjoy going discussing capability of the various multiclasses, but I feel that might be a bit off topic. For a CHARNAME only multiclass to cover the same roles as the Cleric/Ranger, however, have you tried Fighter/Mage/Cleric?
They're actually pretty great if you think of them in terms of Fighter/Clerics that get more, rather than Mage/Clerics that get less, and if you've not played the triple classes before, their levelling speed isn't nearly so painful as one might think, even in a full party.
3 fewer proficiencies 3 lower THAC0, and 1 fewer HLAs, but you get slightly better saves and level 8 mage casting. This includes Polymorph Self, great Sequencers for using both Mage and Cleric spells, some great party buffs (Haste and Improved Haste are the big ones), and extraordinary tanking utility spells - Spell Immunity, Stoneskins, Mirror Image, Protection from Magical Weapons... Not to mention Simulacrum later on.