Single Class Casters (Druids, Mages, Clerics) vs Multi.

Debaser

My question to you guys is what do you prefer?

I keep thinking about rolling a druid...or a fighter druid lately...but I find that single class casters just tend have more spells. I'm not gonna debate dual classing because that's another deal. Just wondering what you prefer and why.

Dee

When I roll up a caster, it's usually a sorcerer, so my only option is single-class. That said, I've rolled cleric/mages before, and there was a delightful novelty to it. The primary downside for me, though, has always been that you can't use kits as a multiclass character, which means (because of specialization) that you'll always be more of a cleric than you are a mage simply due to the number of spells per day you receive in each class's list.

One time I rolled up a Cleric/Ranger, but it wasn't as exciting as I thought it would be.

Anduin

Prefer? I am going through a personel hell at the moment. I have played a Wildmage and I am looking forward to playe BG:EE with it... But... But... Aaaagh! I wan't my character to wear a hood... Even made a feature request of it! Anyway Multi-classes

Pro's: No weakness whilst waiting for your skills to kick back in when dualling.
Get HLA at much lower levels (this maybe fixed now...)
Can play as a race and get racial advantages (useful for thief multiclasses)

Neg's: No Grandmastery (Maybe fixed now...)
Much slower levelling A F / M will be around 14 / 12 mark (ish? correct me dudes!) in TOB.
Not able to choose a kit.

Don't like dualling because of the weakness part waiting for your powers to kick in... Who want's the most powerful build in the game (which is going to be a dual, they can kit and ALL the experience is used and not shared between the classes) when it is only the most powerful for the last 5 minutes of the game!

Hell I'm stuck should I play a F / M / T or F / M or T / M or just go with my original Wildmage. I am literally headbuttin a wall here! No, more than one playthrough for me, I get close to my PCs. There like little versions of me...

moody_mage

My first BGEE character will be a gnome cleric/illusionist. Looking forward to it too.

Quartz

You said it yourself. Single-class spell casters tend to be more spell-oriented, whereas multi-classes will be more versatile. Single-class spell casters will be more powerful on the spell side of things whereas multi-classes will have the ability to fight and cast but never be as good at either as a pure class.

FrozenCells

Debaser said:

My question to you guys is what do you prefer?

I keep thinking about rolling a druid...or a fighter druid lately...but I find that single class casters just tend have more spells. I'm not gonna debate dual classing because that's another deal. Just wondering what you prefer and why.

Well I know you don't wanna debate dual class but if you cant decide, for BG2, fighter7-->druid is an easy compromise since you can dual class immediately and get the fighter levels back even by the time you reach the Promenade. That's my favourite of the Druid classes for BG2 (not for BG1 since then I'd have to be a Fighter the whole game).

But multi/vs single, I don't have a preference. F/D is strong the whole way through which is fun but the Avenger adds some really nice spells to Druid's otherwise quite mediocre low level selection. Also, Shapeshifters let you level up quicker than the F/D to get those nice, high level spells while still maintaining some combat prowess. They're all fun options.

giosanti

There's very little reason to be a single-class Mage in BG1. A Fighter dual-classed at level 2 would take very little time to regain abilities, and would be drastically superior to a single-class mage. The only disadvantage is that it would have to be Human, whereas a single-class Gnome Illusionist gets saving throw bonuses. A single-class Elf Mage, Diviner, or Enchanter gets the Elf's 19 DEX and therefore +1 ranged thac0, but that's cancelled out by the Fighter weapon specialization bonus. Plus, those Elven mage schools are inferior to the Illusionist. Like I said, it could be done at level 2, and the delay wouldn't be noticeable once you get a bit into the game, and you'd still reach max spell level before the end. Personally, I'd dual at level 3 instead, for +1 fighter thac0 and weapon mastery. Also remember, in BG1 you can dual-class to a mage kit.

But if you want to disregard the dual-class option, I'll discuss single vs multi. Basically, the multi is much stronger as a warrior obviously, but is 1 mage level behind at all times, meaning they'll have fewer spells for the duration of the game. Also, the multi can never acquire level 5 spells. Regarding the comparison between the Elven F/M and the Gnome F/Illusionist, notably the Elf has the ranged thac0, sword, and bow bonuses, and the Gnome has the Illusionist school and the saving throws. The Elf is the better warrior and the Gnome is the better spellcaster. So it really just depends how much of a balance you'd like between Fighter and Mage. The order goes: Single > Dual > Gnome Multi > Elf Multi, in order of spellcasting ability vs fighting ability.


Quickly, regarding Priests... I prefer multi to both dual and single. I like to use Priests as tanks, so more Fighter levels are very useful, and getting fewer Priest spells isn't as bad as it is for Mages. The single-class vs dual-class Priest argument is pretty similar to the Mage one, in that you don't lose much by dualling at level 2 or 3. What you do lose is the racial bonuses of the Dwarf, or whatever race you'd choose for a single-class Priest. Regarding Druids, they can only be Human or Half-elf, so you don't lose any racial bonuses by going dual-class. However, it's difficult to get a good roll in dual-classing from Fighter to Druid, since you need 17 in both WIS and CHA and 15 in STR, meaning you'd have to sacrifice either DEX or CON if you want a good STR modifier. Roll would look something like: 18/??-18-7-3-18-18.

10thLich

@Anduin
You forgot a Pro argument:
- due to having more than one class at the same time, they get more HLAs.

10th

sandmanCCL

I see very little reason to be a straight up mage. A fighter without any bonus HP from constitution will have more HP than a single-class wizard can even if you dual-class out of it at level 5. Also there are a lot of fantastic weapons that are better in the hands of a mage than they are in the hands of anyone else, but mages can't default use them.

Clerics and druids, they work out well enough single-class.

Single class druids get way higher than any other caster for BG1, and dual-classing into it from fighter requires a really crazy roll (min 15 strength but you'll probably want that maxed, min 17 wis AND charisma which even if you factor in tomes is still 14/16, and this is all the while ignoring constitution and dexterity which are probably the two most important stats). Multi-class fighter/druids stall out pretty hard in BG2 because that leap from 14 to 15 takes you about 5/6ths of the whole saga to get to.

Clerics already get great HP and can buff themselves to be as good as if not better than fighters. They probably work best paired with thief actually, but then you're extremely limited in weapon selection if you also want to backstab.

I can't really "rp" in these games. It's just not fun to me, because the game's story and engine don't really allow it. I like concept characters, but that's as far as my RP goes.

salieri

Cleric/mage (in particular claric/illusionist) has more spells per day than a straight mage or cleric throughout most of the game I think...

sandmanCCL

They do, but only if you look at casts per day and treat each spell as if it had equal value. If I completely threw away level 2 divine spells, I'd still be happy. Still, that class combo is pretty crazy good.

BelgarathMTH

I think that dual and multi classing makes sense if you are willing to struggle at various early stages of the game in return for higher power in the end game.

I myself prefer to have a relatively easy time of it balanced and spread out through the whole game.

As for multi-classing clerics, keep in mind that there is an xp gap (225,000 to 450,000) between ninth and tenth levels, which is meant to make you work to get those fifth level spells, which are a huge power increase in a cleric's career - chaotic commands, flame strike, and raise dead.

There will be a significant portion of SoA without access to these important spells if you have no pure-classed cleric in your party.

After years of experimentation with various configurations, nothing has changed my conclusion that the best party is one with the classical four pure classes - fighter, thief, cleric, mage. The other two slots don't make any difference. In fact, you may be better off with a four-person pure-classed party, leaving the other two slots blank, to get the experience bonus.

The fighter slot might do well if it's multi-classed or has a kit like Inquisitor. The thief class does well multi-classed with mage to get the invisibility, but it doesn't substitute for a dedicated mage. The cleric needs to be as high level as possible to make the game its easiest for the duration, for the access to the next highest spell levels during the pertinent portion of the total game, and for the undead-blasting.

stygga

@Anduin in vanilla bg, the "robe of the X archmagi" gave your character a hood. IDK if it does in the bg2 engine though..

elminster

To add to what @SandmanCCL has said on druids.


With 6 party members it takes awhile before you can even cast level 7 spells even with a single class druid (1,500,000 experience). It is possible to get this before going through to the asylum of course, but not without going through most of the side quests. Yea, you could reduce the number of party members you have, but then you just miss out on banter.

As a druid multi-class character you need to have overall 3,000,000 experience before you can get level 7 spells, and even then if you want to get more than just a single level 7 druid spell you'd need 6,000,000 experience split between the two classes. Even with wisdom bonuses from tomes and the good bonus from one bhaal tear rewards in hell by the end of SOA you'd have five level 5 spells, two level 6 spells and only one level 7 spell as a multi-class druid (though if you go through watcher's keep you could have seven level 5 spells). Point is by multiclassing as a druid you miss out on a lot of spells for a good portion of SOA + TOB. You are better off from an experience standpoint for going with a dual class fighter/druid, but as SandmanCCL has pointed out it requires a high roll to be able to pull off (especially if you want to take advantage of the higher amounts of health that fighters get from high constitution).

Which is why at least in part I chose pure druids.

HaHaCharade

@giosanti

GO CARDINALS :-)

Son_of_Imoen

My preference is for parties that have at least one of both: the single class caster gets more spells, but is more vulnerable (at least until mid-SOA, when they can buff enough not to get hit) than a multi-class fighter and less versatile when it gets to disarming and scouting than a multi-class thief. I like multi-class characters for filling multiple roles at the same time, therefore creating more space in the party for single-class to excel in what they're good in.

I hardly ever play with a party that hasn't got at least one of both. I usually supplement a single class arcane caster with a part-time caster that deals out melee (F/M), scouts and disarms (M/T) or heals and buffs (C/M) as well. And a single class divine caster I usually supplement with a multi-class from the other divine way of doing things. F/D with a Cleric, C/M with a full-time Druid.

The way I like a party to be, is to be able to fulfill all 4 classic roles of F/C/M/T in multiple ways, supplementing each other as well as providing backup: if a caster of a certain type gets held or confused or silenced, it's always nice to have another with the same roll. Thus, multiple characters that can cast Secret Words or Breach, multiple characters that can cast a Defensive Harmony if melee combat gets intense etc.

No mutually exlusive answer from me, I vote for supplements!

Figrut

Multiclass is exceedingly superior in a system that handles exp like 2nd edition (on a steapening curve). In first edition the races that could have that massive benefit were slightly balanced by having level caps in most classes, but a party of them could handle anything within reason even at those caps with their great average saves.

Son_of_Imoen

belgarathmth said:

After years of experimentation with various configurations, nothing has changed my conclusion that the best party is one with the classical four pure classes - fighter, thief, cleric, mage. The other two slots don't make any difference. In fact, you may be better off with a four-person pure-classed party, leaving the other two slots blank, to get the experience bonus.

The fighter slot might do well if it's multi-classed or has a kit like Inquisitor. The thief class does well multi-classed with mage to get the invisibility, but it doesn't substitute for a dedicated mage. The cleric needs to be as high level as possible to make the game its easiest for the duration, for the access to the next highest spell levels during the pertinent portion of the total game, and for the undead-blasting.

Your last paragraph does deviate from the one where you state you prefer pure F/C/M/T. With a thief subsituted by a T-M, the fighter multi-classed and one pure Cleric and one pure Mage, you're getting dangerously close to my default preference :-). Though I add embellishments to the original dividing of roles by choosing both a pure F as well as a multi. And though I find Druids to be less effective in some ways than Clerics (and they get a lesser amount of spells to choose, making spellpicks for some levels like the 2nd a kind of trashbin of uselesness whereas the Cleric would fill it with silence and hold person) - still with me? - I do like parties with multi-cleric plus full druid for a bit of variation on the main theme.

Thus a favourite party of mine would be something like:
pure warrior - fighter-druid, - pure cleric, - pure mage, - mage-thief,
pure warrior - fighter-thief, - pure druid, - pure mage, -cleric-mage

There's one class that usually gets squashed into the multi-role instead of getting a single class glory all the way through and that's the thief. But the usability of thieves is off-topic here.

Figrut

If you are a save, reload, reload, save, reload player, single class specialised could be best when survivability is not a factor.

Kaxon

I can't really comment on the effects in BG1, but I have some thoughts on BG2/ToB. Basically I think Cleric and Mage are completely different stories when it comes to the value of multiclassing. Clerics level up fast and can gain every HLA really quickly, after which their level ups hardly do anything. So late game I think you gain a lot by using a multiclass instead of a pure cleric. Mages on the other hand take a lot longer to develop so if you have a multiclass mage you don't get level 9 spells until VERY late in the game (I just killed Abazigal and Sendai in my game and Aerie STILL is just level 17 in mage). So using a single class mage seems more reasonable than a single class cleric to me.

cyberhawk

I don't see the reason for disagreement, single class casters will get access to higher level spells earlier and will level faster. Multi-classes are versatile and might have more spells overall (if it's a cleric/mage), but high level spells will be inaccessable for a longer time and in general they are weaker than everyone else until the endgame. If you want versatility, go for a multi- or dual-class. If you want more power earlier in the game, go for single class.

It's definitely possible to have a strong party with only singleclass characters, but if you are going with multi-classes or even dual-classed humans it is much easier to screw up and have a party to weak for the task at hand.

And for a cleric/mage, such a guy would only be really good if you play all the way to ToB and dual to a mage right after you get 7th level spells. Or otherwise any simple cleric will outclass you by summoning Devas or Fiends more often than your cleric/mage can. 7th level spells for clerics are totally on par with 9th level mage spells, if not even more powerful.

Mortianna

Given the absence of an evil pure-class thief in BG and BG2, I've been giving some thought to making a dual-class Necromancer/Thief, starting out as a Thief and dualling at 6th level. It's only 20K XP and won't take much off the cap. Starting out at 1st and getting to 7th level as a Necromancer won't be too much of delay, I'm thinking. Since Necromancers can't cast Invisibility, I'd put about half of my skill points in stealth (great way to sneak past enemies and cast an AOE spell) and the other in find/disarm traps (raw points ending at 80% each). Potions of Master Thievery can compensate for the lack of points in Open Locks and Pick Pockets. Failing that, I always have the Knock spell for locks. A single Potion of Perception would take care of the more difficult traps.

I'd also have a broader range of weapons to choose from, especially missile weapons.

Come to think of it, this PC would basically be an evil version of Imoen or Nalia in BG2.

ginger_hammer

I'm starting to think that thief's can always benefit as multi-class due to low exp for leveling and it doesn't take long to get the %'s up for skills. The extra HPs when multi with cleric/druid with fighter helps too. I prefer mages as pure and at least one fighter type as pure too.

O_Bruce

Question what do I prefer in that matter. Ok.

I personally like single class casters better, although if it comes to power alone, multi and dual class characters are getting upper hand later on. Single-class caster is also more enjoyable to roleplay for me. Still, two matters exists. First, I usually play human, so no multi-class for me. Second, I consider - pardon for my language - dual-class mechanism as a bullcrap. "I'm starting new profesion just to forget everything I've learned so far for some time." Seems legit?

AHF

For me personally, I like my mages single classed because needing 750K or 1125K to advance a single level in BG2 means progression is too slow and since you have 9 levels of spells to acquire that means that every level you get until the end of the game is meaningful.

I like my clerics, druids and thieves multi classed. Druids hit a dead point in their advancement due to the XP required and so having a fighter component ala Jaheira is more fun for me. The ability to wear armor, use the iron skins and use the whirlwind attacks is very potent along with some solid spell casting (creeping doom being my favorite).

Clerics don't have enough casting power for my PC so I like multiclassing with a fighter or ranger component. The main downside is that the slower cleric leveling means you won't be deadly with turn undead. Thieves get more than enough skill points throughout the game so I think there is zero downside to multiclassing them. They combine well with the mage and/or fighter classes as well.

Dragonspear

What level do Clerics begin acquiring their 7th level spells. I was considering a cleric->mage dual last night and was wondering if I should do it at 5th level spells or 6th.

salieri

http://playithardcore.com/pihwiki/index.php?title=Baldur's_Gate:_Progression_Charts#Cleric

14

AHF

Dragonspear said:

What level do Clerics begin acquiring their 7th level spells. I was considering a cleric->mage dual last night and was wondering if I should do it at 5th level spells or 6th.

5th level spells at level 9 - 225K
6th level spells at level 11 - 675K
7th level spells at level 14 - 1350K

salieri

Personally, 'back in the day' when I was still playing BG, I totally preferred single class characters and almost always played a mage. Since having my interest repiqued, however, and reading everything I can about BG to try to fill the gap before launch, I have convinced myself that a cleric/mage is exactly the class I want to play.

The only trouble is, I've done exactly the same thing with assassin, blade and archer at various points. Keep coming back to that cleric illusionist though...

Silence

My preference: I strongly prefer melee builds, so I like my casters to be dual-class and begin as warriors. Start as a fighter, reach level 7 (or 9) and dual to whatever caster I need. This allows me to enjoy the game without losing much of the benefits of being a fighter (eg: level 13 extra half-attack).

Why not multi-class? Multiclass is great for BG1, but the level lag for the multiclass character really starts to bug me in late BG2, especially since I don't like power-leveling. The one exception I have is the cleric/mage. The versatility is worth it. This character is a dedicated "buffer" and "identifier" (support caster).

On the druid debate: Single-class druids might not get to level 7 spells very fast, but they do get to level 6 spells slightly earlier (if I'm not mistaken). Summon Fire Elemental is an awesome level 6 spell. When you get it, most enemies will not even be able to damage the fire elemental due to it's immunity to non-magical weapons.

BelgarathMTH

@salieri, I like the cleric-mage class too, but if you play the whole game with a six member party, you are going to be really hurting for high-level spells at lots of places in the game unless you have both a pure cleric and a pure mage. (I know a lot of people don't agree with me about the cleric - but I *hate* being without Chaotic Commands during early SoA - Chaotic Commands makes Nalia's castle and so much else in early SoA very easy. Not to mention the warm, fuzzy convenience of Raise Dead. And then, there's Wondrous Recall upon gaining level six spells. I'd rather have it sooner than later.)

Also, you will not get your ninth level spells until almost time to face Melissan. I'd rather have them much earlier, so I can enjoy them through most of ToB, or even have them to use against Irenicus at the SoA finale.