Fighter/Cleric vs. Cleric/Ranger for a semi-solo game
Kneller
Member Posts: 438
This is for a Siblings only run. I'm going to do a run with either a (dwarf/gnome) Fighter/Cleric or a Half-elf Cleric/Ranger. I'm only taking on NPCs for their quests and will otherwise be solo. However, I do intend to rescue Imoen and keep her when I get her back. I'm also going to turn her into a half-elf multi mage/thief. I will probably also keep Sarevok when I can get him. I'm using the ease of use mod for multiple strongholds. I might also throw in an XP cap remover so I can max levels with my multis.
The way I see it:
Fighter/Cleric advantages that matter to me:
No alignment restrictions (and I play my alignment)
shorty saving throws
conceptually makes more sense than a cleric/ranger
Cleric/Ranger advantages:
get the druid spells
better stronghold (ranger vs. fighter)
Easier to get high stats (I won't sit around rolling for high stats, I'll do about a minute and move on with the best)
The way I see it:
Fighter/Cleric advantages that matter to me:
No alignment restrictions (and I play my alignment)
shorty saving throws
conceptually makes more sense than a cleric/ranger
Cleric/Ranger advantages:
get the druid spells
better stronghold (ranger vs. fighter)
Easier to get high stats (I won't sit around rolling for high stats, I'll do about a minute and move on with the best)
- Fighter/Cleric vs. Cleric/Ranger for a semi-solo game34 votes
- Shorty Fighter/Cleric44.12%
- Half-Elf Cleric/Ranger55.88%
1
Comments
That being said, the two are so close mechanically that non-mechanical concerns like alignment for the RP are probably more relevant.
Shorty saves aren't that important, imo. In a solo (or near-solo) run you'd probably not want to take chances anyway, even with good saves, because you fail = you die a lot of the time against the actually important spells. Plus you have all the protective equipment for yourself, meaning you can switch in resistance and immunity gear as needed very easily.
The only aspect that I would find a major benefit, although you @Kneller didn't mention it, is stealth. As you'll be soloing large portions of the game, stealth will be superuseful.
I agree with @Tansheron that one shouldn't rely on saves, at least when there's a chance of one not making one's roll. BUT: The Dwarven Fighter/Cleric gets the best saves out of all possible classes and class combinations. They reach a point in mid SoA (for you even earlier because you'll be soloing a lot) where their saves are so low that they'll automatically save against everything that allows a saving throw. Dwarven Fighter/Cleric is an excellent solo class.
As to the role-playing aspects, I think both concepts can be fleshed, but I agree that Dwarven Fighter/Cleric is less peculiar.
That said, if you really prefer the Ranger stronghold to the Fighter or Cleric, that might be reason enough to go with the R/C right there.
In BG2, saves will be important because it is easy to get your immunities dispelled, if you're a multi-class cleric. This is particularly true if you're playing SCS, as more enemies will cast Remove Magic and Breach.
Remove Fear, Death Ward, Free Action, and Chaotic Commands will make your saving throws for you. But they can be dispelled if you don't have SI: Abjuration to protect those buffs.
If you don't restore their spells, then they have a worse race, level slower, and don't even get all the spell slots they're supposed to, plus they only access their extra druid spells at the appropriate ranger level. Level 3 Ranger spells = 2.4 million exp. By which time you have level 6 cleric spells and are a few hundred thou off level 7s.
Saves are even more important for a character who can't cast arcane spells, notably Spell Immunity : Abjuration and who will see his buffs dispelled a lot, the Dwarf F/C will have a really easier time against the Beholders for example.
I've thought about the question in the OP, @Kneller , just recently, when deciding whom to take as the Bhaalspawn in the no-reload multiplayer run. And I've chosen a F/C, and so far I'm loving it.
I realize that I will be playing with the Ease of Use Mod, particularly the module that lets me have multiple strongholds (in effect, all of them), so that's actually one less point for the C/R. I didn't think the save bonus was going to be that major of a talking point, but I can see the advantage of it.
I appreciate all the input so far, though I wouldn't do a triple class (FMC). Frankly, I prefer single classes, but since it's just going to be Imoen and myself most of the game, it warrants bringing in a second class.
Edit: I just noticed it's now 9-8, so I guess it is a close call. However, none of the C/R people are speaking up here.
Perhaps people are not yet used to the unlocked druid table of the BG(2)EE C/R (an option in the baldur.ini file). This may influence the evaluation.
Not your initial question but what about a gnome cleric/thief, after all you said gnome or dwarf
If covering the four bases isn't a factor of importance to you, or Imoen the F/M (or S/M) is fine with you, then Musigny's suggestion of Gnome Cleric/Thief may be one to consider. A Cleric/Thief is a very versatile character, which is both convenient since you'll be soloing a lot, and fun because you'll have different possible ways of solving problems: you'll be able to disarm and set traps, get great summons to fight for you, buff and fight as if you were a warrior, blow up Undead, deal out devastating backstabs, protect yourself against about every status effect, and UAI will simpy be fantastic (fast casting with Robe of Vecna, multiple attacks with speed weapons/items, casting mage spells from scrolls, etc). Fighter/Clerics can do some of these things as well, yet other things they can't. What they have on Cleric/Thieves is that they're inherently better fighters (HPs, Thac0, APR). While I have nothing but love for badass Dwarven Fighter/Clerics, I think Cleric/Thief is the more versatile and entertaining solo class (at least mechanically). However, I'm aware that personal preferences decide what's the most fun for each player.
@Blackraven Actually, you hit the nail right on the head. I want to cover the four base classes, and I want to edit Imoen as little as possible (so I would keep her a mage/thief rather than a fighter/thief). I didn't think about kitting her, but the SK is fussy about about kitting multiclasses. I can actually only kit the mage class and have it function properly. That being said, I would probably make her a wild mage. I'm pretty psyched about that. Wild mages are my favorite for fun factor.
Back to Charname, I'm still going back and forth. I started thinking shorty fighter/cleric (which I can functionally kit to a beserker), but a couple things have me leaning towards the cleric/ranger (which I can kit to Lathander). The improved chargen rolls are pretty big for me. I'm not the type to sit forever to get good rolls. I'll give it a minute maybe and move on. Also, the ranger's stealth will come in handy. There are a lot of outdoor maps in BG1 that I don't really remember well. Also, I'll be soloing a good part of BG2, so being able to scout there is super helpful (perhaps with a casting of find traps beforehand). Then I also started thinking about the elemental summons I'd get with the spell selection, and insect plague, etc.
I feel like the ranger has a long list of little perks compared to the F/C, but the F/C basically can get at least +4 to saving throws and (if kitted) immunity to imprisonment. That is pretty huge. It makes it really tough to decide. That might explain why the voting is 55/45 at the moment.
Again speaking from intuition, I sense that your preference is Cleric/Ranger, and that other people's comments have made you hesitate, mainly because of Dwarven Fighter/Clerics' superior saves.
So why not simply go with Cleric/Ranger? It's true that your saves will be something to take care of, but considering once more that you'll be soloing (duoing in BG1) most of the time, you'll level up faster than a group character, meaning better saves earlier, and besides you can have Charname use all the protective potions (magic blocking, magic resistance, magic shielding, invulnerability, stone form, freedom, clarity), items (greenstone amulet, ring/cloak of protection +2, helm/cloak of Balduran, cloak of displacement, and shield of harmony, ring of Gaxx, etc), as well as green scrolls.
Scouting with stealth can be a life-saver if you want to keep reloading down to a minimum, but so is casting sanctuary. It cannot replace stealth ofc, but may be used from time to time to scout ahead.
The saves are important, as others have said above. Getting down to negative saves allow you to free up spell slots for prebuffins spells which can be used for other combat buffs or debuffs.
The fighter/cleric can use things like DUHM to offset a less than perfect stat roll compared to the ranger/clerics higher minimum stats, so even if you don't get 18:91+ in STR at char creation, you can still dish out the damage when needed.
A keepered berzerker/cleric or a fighter/cleric of lathander both add tons of utility, if you want to go down that route, though I think a dwarven defender/cleric or barbarian/cleric is the best illegal combo to keeper. Both add tones of resistances so that you can tank pretty much anything with a combo of AoF and kit resistances. There are less choices for ranger/cleric kits that add similar superb synergies, IMHO.
My personal preference is leaning towards Cleric/Ranger partly because if I make Imoen a half-elf thief/mage then it can almost be like we are actual blood brother and sister. Also, I feel this class is going to be more versatile and I tend to lean towards options verses raw power. The imprisonment immunity and shorty bonuses are pretty great (if I SK in the Beserker kit), but as I see it that's the only two significant advantages to this option.
How each plater deals whith the many too much tempting things is a personal choice. I like to decide before each run what I will allow, others choose different routes, but is something to which everyone is exposed from the character creation to the final battle.
Get to chapter 2 with both toons and see which one you like the best. They both have their pros and cons. And depending on your stat rolls and spell selections you can be as overpowered or underpowered as envisioned and getting to chapter 2 with both won't waste as much time as getting to chapter 4 with one before stopping.
1) Hammers. For Basillus' hammer, arguably the best cleric weapon in BG1. However, this doesn't really do my any favors for starting BG2, or really even throughout the game. I don't really need Crom with DUHM. The Runehammer comes too late.
2) Maces. This is planning ahead for the MoD. I can also get the +2 mace in DT for what might be the next best cleric weapon in the game. However, it comes much later.
3) Staves. It almost seems like a waste, since I will likely be spending 99.99% of my time either sword and shield or DWing. However, BG1 has the staff mace (1-h), which can compete with the +2 mace in DT (and can be found much sooner) and staff of striking. Also, BG2 has some good staves as well, though I'm guessing I'll be spending most of my time using FoA and DoE so does it really matter?
2: Maces: Great choice for BG1 IMHO, you got http://baldursgate.wikia.com/wiki/The_Stupefier as a solid choice. In BG2 there are plenty of mid-game options which you can use 'til you get better choices, though as you say yourself, flails will prolly be your first choice.
3: I like staff maces, but they don't get past +2 enchantments and don't have other great abilitites either for single hand. 2-hand staffs could be used as an optional and situational choice in some occasions though. I'd rank this the lowest of your three options.
Since you seem to mainly focus on long term and SoA/ToB, and considering FoA's not so appealing free action after upgrade, I believe warhammers would be the best choice. You will prolly want to unequip FoA from time to time for some IH action (if FoA is upgraded), so it's good to have a solid option here. With this said though, you'll get enough pips longterm to choose more than just one more category so you could spend a point or two in ie maces for BG1 and then choose warhammers in BG2.
But, if I need another +5 weapon to swap in, I'm not sure what's good for clerics. Is there a point to Crom if I have DUHM when I really need it? And Runehammer is cool, but I'll already have MoD which is pretty much the same thing and it isn't terribly useful outside of undead fighting. Storm Star isn't bad, but nothing to write home about. Regardless, by this point of the game, I'd probably have double pips in everything.
Or, if I think of it in terms of an offhand weapon, the kings of the category are Crom and DoE, I figure. I'll already have flails, can easily get hammers by the time Crom is available (especially with a party of 1-2).
At this point, perhaps I just need to consider the rest of BG1 and possibly early BG2. Really, the only difference between the boss warhammer in BG1 and the +1 morningstar I can get early enough is that the hammer does 5-8 damage, while the morningstar (flail proficiency) does 3-9. Meanwhile the later acquired mace +2 does 4-9 with the same Thaco bonus as the hammer. All in all, I don't think it makes a difference, which oddly makes the decision harder. I mean, we're looking at a point of damage here and a point of thaco there...