Paladin or Fighter/Cleric?
Brude
Member Posts: 560
Assume human paladin and dwarven fighter/cleric for a compete run through the series.
Who's the more versatile option? Who's more powerful going into ToB? Does the paladin scale better than the fighter/cleric or vice versa?
I googled around and found a few posts at other forums on this topic, but I'd like to hear what the community here thinks.
Who's the more versatile option? Who's more powerful going into ToB? Does the paladin scale better than the fighter/cleric or vice versa?
I googled around and found a few posts at other forums on this topic, but I'd like to hear what the community here thinks.
1
Comments
Best kit if you ask me is Cavalier. It's just awesome. Yeah, whatever, so you can't use bows and stuff ... whoop-de-doo. Good few combat bonuses, another Paladin spell to spam, at the expense of no bows/crossbows/etc.? Whatevs! Besides, if you really need ranged, just get two pips in Axes and use Throwing Axes. Rather suitable to pick up Azuredge nice and early, throw it at zambies and such.
And Fighter/Cleric ... well, it's just awesome, forever. I dunno, it's the most logical multi-class there is because there are no real restrictions outside of weaponry.
I'd say that a paladin is a slightly better choice, simply because unless you are soloing, a lot of the combat buffs you can apply as a cleric can be cast by another cleric in your party on you. Plus going into ToB, you get to summon devas anyway regardless of which class you pick.
Fighter cleric is probably slightly better right at the end game, but paladin will be very powerful for far more of the game than a fighter cleric.
Having said that, there really is no wrong choice.
You can be a dwarf. Think of the beer!
In all honesty, Fighter/Cleric. They really are just more versatile. The ONLY thing paladins have going for them over fighter/clerics is weapon selection which is a non-issue because blunt weapons are superior to bladed ones 90% of the time, and the best weapons from a pure damage perspective in the game are also blunt (Crom Fayer, Flail of Ages).
1) Paladins don't gain any spells til level 9, which you can't get to with a paladin in BG1. By the time they do gain any divine spell casting, a fighter/cleric already has as many divine spells as a level 19 paladin, PLUS however many he gains from wisdom.
2) Paladins level up inordinately slow for a single-class. A fighter/cleric hits level 7/7 before a paladin will hit level 8. His only advantage: ease of use Protection from/Detect Evil. Ooh. Aah.
3) Paladins level up REALLY SLOW. A paladin at the end of BG2's default level cap is at 17. A fighter/cleric will be at 13/14. The paladin will have 3/3/3/1 spells per day, while the cleric will have 6/6/6/5/3/2/1 + bonus spells from wisdom.
4) You don't have to be human. Yay racial bonuses! Yay halfling dexterity! Yay dwarf constitution! Yay gnomes being... gnomes! And yay shorty saving throws!
I guess Paladins can also kit and gain the crazy protection bonuses given to Cavaliers or the wicked powerful dispel given to Inquisitor. Too bad clerics can get the same immunities through careful spell selection.
Paladins will have slightly better thac0, and the spells to they do have access to will have a higher caster level attributed to it. Mind you, the paladin's better thac0 is at the greatest disparity between the two characters is only a +6. When paladin hits 0 thac0, the fighter/cleric will be at thaco 6 (and then only for another 100k xp). At max level, paladins only have 9 caster level over a fighter/cleric, too. And that's AT THE XP CAP, so for most of the game it's dramatically less than that, nor does it even really matter all that much at that point.
Paladins... are paladins. They're like specialized fighters. If you're playing one it's because you want to play a paladin. Anything that gives you higher level magic is going to outshine fighters, even fighters with a little bit of magic.
I'm a good way through the first game with my Paladin, and I'm really enjoying it. But I know a Fighter/Cleric would prolly be overall much stronger just on the weight of all the cleric magic.
Edit: I suppose "+2 bonus" is a little vague, I should have said "+2 bonus compared to other warrior classes"
...then again, I never really liked dual classing. I could never tell the best time to stop advancing in one class and start on another.
If we're talking multiclass, then fighter/cleric has an advantage of being able to cast divine spells long before a paladin can. But paladins are still all kinds of crazy-awesome.
And still not as good as a dwarf.
Death / Wands / Poly / Breath / Spell
Human Fighter: 14 / 16 / 15 / 17 / 17
Elven Ranger: 14 / 16 / 15 / 17 / 17
Human Paladin: 12 / 14 / 13 / 15 / 15
Dwarven Fighter Cleric: 5 / 9 / 13 / 16 / 10
This is at level one with the appropriate physical attributes maxed out. I only noticed this because I've been fooling around with different fighter builds tonight, after posting this thread. :-P
Edit: Interesting that Ajantis doesn't get the same bonus. I just noticed that at level two, right after joining the party, he has the same saving throws as a plain fighter.
I think that ultimately, the Fighter/Cleric would be the more powerful class. Dual-classing made me feel depressed when I had played as a pure Thief, for instance, since you could play a Fighter/Thief and have more HP, better THACO, weapon proficiencies, and equipment selection (Gauntlets of Ogre Power, for one), al in exchange for one level's worth of Thief skill percentage (big whoop). Without looking at progression charts, if you could squeeze in 7 levels of Fighter and 8+ levels of Cleric, you'd probably lose one Cleric level, along with the associated spells, but gain a much higher HP, better THACO, an extra attack, and weapons specialization.
From a pure power perspective, I'd argue that dual-classing is a no brainer. Level 7 fighter is the sweet spot, since you'd gain the extra 1/2 attack per round, which should bring you up to 2 attacks per round if you have 2 stars in a weapon specialization. You'd essentially be playing a Fighter with all of the awesome buffing and healing ability of a Cleric.
The downside is that with dual-classing, you'd have to wait for a long time, sans cheating or strategic grinding, in order for the build to come to fruition. At least when playing a Paladin, you could leisurely go through the game without having to wait to get 8 or so levels of Cleric in order to see the benefits of dual-classing.
Also, from a more personal perspective, ranged weapons are nice to have, but the idea of a fully armored warrior fighting monsters with a sling is retarded to me. That's one thing that I like about 3rd edition; a cleric can use simple weapons (which includes crossbows) instead of solely blunt. A Paladin could use bows and crossbows without restriction.
Of course, as I mentioned above, Detect Evil and being forced to have a high CHA is nice to have. Speaking of which, it would be much, much easier to get a higher natural roll for a Paladin than for either a Fighter or Cleric, but this could be amended with cheats. If you don't use cheats, than your Paladin could more easily have a better stat spread.
Now that Class Kits are introduced to Baldur's Gate, I'd give the advantage to the Paladin on that front, as all three of the Kits are awesome in my opinion.
As for long-term (i.e. BG2), again, the Holy Avenger is downright awesome, but that's not necessarily reason enough to play a Paladin, and Keldorn would certainly want it, if you want him in your party. A consideration for BG2 is that if you dual-class, you will be forced to limit your Fighter levels to around 7 or so, depending on the experience cap for the Enhanced Edition. This means that you wouldn't be able to try to come up with a potentially more effective level ratio in BG2, unless you played BG1 all the way through as a Fighter. I'm not looking at any of the class or experience charts at the moment, so I'm not sure what the most effective level ratio would be, but it's something to consider. Again, this could mean that you will need more patience to see the powerful build reach fruition.
Ultimately, I don't have a straight answer. The Fighter/Cleric would be more powerful in my opinion, but you would have to play the game for many hours before your Cleric levels exceeded your Fighter levels, while you could play through as the Paladin and not worry about it, which could potentially mean a more enjoyable gaming experience.
What even uses Breath Weapon I'm curious? I know Dragon's Breath does, and Skull Traps, but that's all I know of...
Fighter/Clerics multiclass is just cheese with double cheese on top, you get both Fighter and Cleric HLAs, if you're a dwarf you get an insane boost to your saves which outshines the Paladin one, however, from a p&p point of view it's just too powerful if you allow it to reach high levels in both classes. For Baldur's Gate of course, where cheese exists all over the place, Fighter/Cleric is not that much cheese, Kensai/Mage says hello.
In general, both a Paladin and a Fighter/Cleric can solo the game, so they are adequately powerful, both of them.
The Fighter/Cleric will have lower Thac0, which will use spells to counter, the Paladin won't have to.
The Fighter/Cleric will have access to Crom Faeyr, the most powerful weapon arguably, but a Paladin has access to Carsomyr, or even a Blackguard will have access to silver vorpal sword, along with the ability to raise his strength in game to 23 or 24, making Crom Faeyr and 25 strength not that impressive suddenly.
They are almost equally powerful as melee fighters, however the F/C will always be more versatile. In return, he will have to boost himself to get the Paladin's thac0, and he most definetely won't be able to heal himself in combat, since if you're getting hit, you will never be able to cast heal on you.
Also, don't forget that the Paladin will always be ahead in levels.
The favor is with the F/C, especially if he's a dwarf, but Paladin doesn't fall behind too much.
They are totally different, however, since you don't get any spellcasting other than true seeing and dispel magic (which at least are two of the most powerful in the game and are cast with a cast time of 1 which allows you to rip off one of them and resume beating your opponent with little break - unlike stopping for an entire round to cast true seeing with a cleric).
(Thanks @Forse for the correction!)
I'd say pick whatever you want. With a kit like Inquisitor or perhaps Cavalier, the paladin is as good as the F/C. Having quick-cast True Sight and an extremely reliable Dispel Magic counters what a melee character has most trouble with: spellcasters. Cavalier is a nice kit too. Haven't tried it though, but it appeals to me.
Bladed weapons are just preference and while the holy avenger is powerful, being an Inquisitor takes care of having dispels and the extra damage is just extra damage, I prefer doing damage via magic personally. Also, the paladin only weapons are only available in BG2.
As far as BG1 is concerned Paladins are inferior is almost every single way to fighter/clerics. I suppose in the end it's just a matter of preference but you cannot deny that fighter/cleric is much more flexible in terms of alignment, stronghold, spellcasting, etc.
(This is NOT for solo).
The higher casting levels a single classed cleric get are actually extremely handy and make it far easier to manage buffing. Also, if we are comparing the fighter/cleric to a single cleric, most people will point out the lack of specialization and lowered thac0 as the main reason single classed clerics are inferior. This, of course, is absolutely true.
BUT
Who cares? You have a party to smash stuff with and when things REALLY matter (big fights against mages, dragons, liches, etc) you are going to buff the heck out of yourself anyway. At that point you become a truly arse-kicking machine regardless of multi-classed or not. WITH the benefit of being able to turn undead like a boss (I love turn undead. It's my buddy). I am also a big fan of not waiting. I like having spells available to me quickly and not waiting until mid way through SoA (or even ToB for some builds! Absurd) to get my goodies.
All that is WITHOUT taking kits. If you put kits into the equation, the flavor they bring makes things even more fun. Lathander gets a really nice +1 to hit, +1 to damage, +1 to all saving throws and 1 extra attack per round. Once you get higher levels, the duration starts being plenty good enough and (erroneously, I understand) it stacks with itself. Pretty darn cool.
Helm also has some nice benefits (though not as nice as lathander). The true sight makes it so no one else has to memorize it, and the sword (while not very useful) is at least handy for dispatching foes that need highly magical items to hit.
Lastly, let me also say that I know this thread was about PALADIN vs fighter/cleric. But I think even the cleric by itself is a very fun and formidable foe.