cleric/mage vs fighter/mage THROUGHOUT the saga.
Terhid
Member Posts: 11
I know it's a little bit apples and oranges, but still one should be more powerful than another. I'm assuming full party, insane + SCS. A lot of comparisons only takes into account endgame stats, which doesn't make sense as endgame is so much easier than BG1 and SoA.
Additional question for both of them: gnome or elf? For me gnome seems clearly better since shorty saves and more spells/day make a huge difference in BG1, but elves seem to be far more popular, so there must be some reason for that. Access to Necromancy is invaluable for pure caster, but for F/M the school loses much of it's appeal, since instead of using horrid wilting you can just buff and slaughter them.
Also, are cleric/mages decent in melee?
And one more question: assuming that I'm gonna play both of them, which is more suited for good and which for evil playthrough?
I've excluded dual classes (in particular kensai/mage) because playing single class for half of the saga is pain in the ass. Though, feel free to discuss sorcerer and wild mage.
Additional question for both of them: gnome or elf? For me gnome seems clearly better since shorty saves and more spells/day make a huge difference in BG1, but elves seem to be far more popular, so there must be some reason for that. Access to Necromancy is invaluable for pure caster, but for F/M the school loses much of it's appeal, since instead of using horrid wilting you can just buff and slaughter them.
Also, are cleric/mages decent in melee?
And one more question: assuming that I'm gonna play both of them, which is more suited for good and which for evil playthrough?
I've excluded dual classes (in particular kensai/mage) because playing single class for half of the saga is pain in the ass. Though, feel free to discuss sorcerer and wild mage.
1
Comments
On the other hand F/Illusionist gnome get insane throws against some types of magic and extra spells per day but what I really like is that you get extra -2 saving throw penatly to your illusion spells. A spook lvl1 spell gets -8 base ! saving throw at level 12 which makes it very good spell for entire saga. Combined with greater mallision making it great CC spell for near useless lvl1 spell choice.
Net net I think FM is to be played as melee rather than caster and for this reason I would go gnome because of his better saves/hp and more spells per day (more buffs). In the end bastard swords are better anyway than long swords so I never miss out on those. I usually go +2 pips in scmitars in bg1 anyway to get shiny drizzt loot anyway.
Cleric/Mage is played more like a caster than melee so no it's not good in melee simply because of awful thac0 and weapon restrictions. Yes you could use tensers but loosing ability to cast spells is not worth it because if your defenses fall of your as good as dead.
Both are nice for evil/good playthrogugh so no RP here really but for FM you can go for drizzt loot and then blackrazor in bg2 so kinda more evilish than cleric/mage who wouldn't use those anyway.
So from a combat perspective, the fighter is attacking somewhere between 50% more often and 350% more often. (Dual-wielding is mostly future-proofing, TBH, since shields are super-useful in BG1 and SoA. But still, the extra 1.5 APR just from being a fighter is a major difference.)
Since the fighter is getting anywhere between a 50% and 150% damage boost just from existing as a fighter, the Cleric needs his spells to carry a lot of water to make that up. And at low levels, Cleric spells can do that. Healing is mandatory, self-buffs can help make your fewer attacks more potent, (though they can't offset the damage gap), and eventually Chaotic Commands becomes one of the biggest selling points of the class.
But most of that stuff can be handled by a party cleric rather than by your main character, and multi-class clerics miss out on some of the stuff single-class party clerics could do, (turn undead, race to those level 15 Animate Dead skeletons, etc.)
Basically, a C/M really works best as a back-row caster type, while a F/M can be nearly as good as a back-row caster (using just Mage spells instead of combined Cleric and Mage spells), but is also substantially better if you want to move him forward and use him in combat, too.
And the Cleric really does best in the comparison during BG1, where spells like Silence 15' are just ludicrously good. But the Fighter offsets this by being able to equip bows (and get extra attacks with them), since bows are the most broken thing in BG1. (Well, bows and wands, but you get wands either way.)
Elves are nicer than Gnomes in early BG1, where the +1 THACO with swords and bows makes a noticeable difference and the near-immunity to charm is super-useful when slaughtering sirens for cheap XP. But Gnomes pass Elves in utility pretty quickly and really never look back. By mid-BG1, they're the better class in nearly every way except for romances, (Elves can romance Jahiera/Aerie/Anomen, Gnomes can only romance Aerie).
And if you're going to play both, I'll second the suggestion to make your F/M evil and your C/M good. Both good and evil already have quality clerics, and you really only need one cleric, anyway. But evil faces a bit of a fighter shortage, while Good has a glut of options.
In the earliest parts of the game, most armor-users are going to be in Plate Mail at best (AC3). Mages can cast Shield (AC4), or even buy the Shield amulet in Nashkel Carnival and use that.
Eventually, fighter-types will upgrade to Full Plate (AC1). Around this time mages should be getting Ghost Armor, though, (AC2). And shortly thereafter, even that one-point advantage disappears as the mage gets Spirit Armor, (AC1).
(Granted, this takes up precious spell slots, so if you'd rather use your mage as a nuker, ranged attacks are a better bet.)
Even if the pure fighter has a slight AC advantage for much of the campaign, that's easily offset by the F/M's access to Blur, Mirror Image and, eventually, Stoneskin.
Like I said, making a F/M into a melee powerhouse takes a lot of spell slots, so grabbing a bow and using those spell slots for other purposes is a totally viable path. It's just that melee is viable, too, if you want it to be.
Regarding melee focus, I'd like to try a build that is at least somewhat competent in melee, as so far I have only played pure arcane casters in all DnD games. Of course excluding Icewind Dale and other games where you can create the whole party.
I'll go with evil F/M gnome then. As for proficiencies, I'll get 12 in total, I would go as follows:
initially: 2 in short bows, 2 in 2 weapon style,
then in BG1: +1 in 2 weapon style and +1 war hammers (ashideena)
in BG2: 2 in katanas, 2 in flails.
Does this proficiency distribution make sense? Where should I put the last 2 points? Long swords? Another one in war hammers for Crom Faeyr?
A c/m can be a very useful character but in general I have found you have to reload often if you try to use any mage combination in melee combat. A mage is still basically a mage even in a multiclass. It is the weak link in the combination.
Sloane
It requires significant prebuffing, which may not be your thing, but when done properly and with appropriate redundancies & contingencies... they're practically invincible.
I love it when the computer decides to focus fire on my Fighter/Mage. Because he's either got the best AC in my party or is within a point or two, he can absorb a ton of hits without taking damage, and he can refresh his protections whenever necessary.
The cost is that he has to devote a ton of his spell slots to defensive buffs and refresh his armor spell of choice every couple of battles, but the payoff is the most unkillable character class in the game.
By early SoA when he starts getting his top-tier protection spells, (Protection from Magic Weapons), it becomes ridiculous. You've got on-demand invulnerability for four rounds times the number of level 6 spell slots you have.
Edit: You've also got the Improved Invisibility / Spell Immunity: Divination combo to completely shut down enemy mages. Really, only a Blade can rival a Fighter/Mage in terms of sheer unkillability throughout the saga. Maybe a Barbarian or Dwarven Defender.
You can also throw in some Fire Shields for free damage.
But if it's just AC you're going for, Spirit Armor + Blur is basically identical to Full Plate + Destroyer of the Hills, (the girdle that protects against crushing). Full Plate / Belt will give you -3 AC against Slashing and Crushing, -2 against Piercing and Missile. Spirit Armor / Blur will give you -2 against everything and some saving throw bonuses.
So yeah, if you want to build him for AC, a F/M can be at worst a point or so behind anyone else in your party. You're just going to have to burn some spell slots and refresh from time to time. (Personally, I prefer to have a more traditional tank and use my F/M as a secondary fighter just so there's less micromanagement involved.)
For every enemy threat, arcane casters have a counter. It's micromanagement-intensive and that's not always everyone's cup of tea, but at the end of the day, mages are simply the best tanks in the entire game, with honorable mention to Blades, (access to most of the same spells, plus Defensive Spin / Improved Bard Song for ridiculous AC scores), and some of the top-end damage reduction tanks (Dwarven Defenders, Barbarians, Fighter/Cleric multis, some Paladins and Rangers).
I'm not saying Ankheg Plate isn't good, I'm saying it isn't as good as most people think it is, because many/most people see the top-line AC number and think "this is just as good as Full Plate, why on earth would I switch over?" even on front-line tanks who do have the strength to handle the heavy stuff. The heavy stuff isn't just heavier, it's better, too. More than a full point better on average, assuming a relatively even distribution of attack types.
I usually make Imoen my super mage so anyone who wants to play a super mage can do so. In fact with a properly balanced party you have all the classes to play around with in the game. The big difference is when your character dies, it is reload and replay time. That gets frustrating when it happens too many times. With the NPCs you can revive them in various ways. Especially in BG2 where you no longer have to haul the body to a temple and pay for resurrection.
No contest in terms of dual classing though. F/M it is.
A well-buffed F/M is excellent for melee, but when caught unbuffed (by ambush, by dispel, etc.) is not so hot. Therefore it's often best to keep a F/M in second row rather than out in front, so that you have more choice in each battle about whether to melee, or fight ranged, or cast. The flexibility to do all of those things is the great advantage of a F/M, so play him/her in a way that keeps the options open.
As to which of the two is "better" in a full-series run ... it depends very much upon who else is in your party, and that outweighs all comparisons between the F/M and C/M alone. Provided that you gather a suitable party around each of them, both are very powerful characters. Personally I find the C/M more fun, but the F/M is probably easier to play well.
As a result I often equip him with magical (e.g. Ankheg) plate armour and magical large shield, nullifying his spellcasting ability, because my party uses up priest and mage spells quickly anyhow. Probably not the best way to use him though. It might be a good idea to for me to give him a point in a serviceable missile weapon like shortbow or longbow later (and get the elf THAC0 bonus for either)...
All in all I think I'd rather be using a single class fighter or mage, but it's certainly an interesting challenge. I heard that C/M and F/M become more potent in SoD.