Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Opinion of Cleric/Rangers

2456789

Comments

  • gloinunitgloinunit Member Posts: 25
    No
    Mornmagor said:

    Well, if they decide to touch cleric/rangers, they should at least balance everything else as well, i agree.

    (Which won't happen so you're probably safe).

    You say this as if people who don't want it changed only play Cleric/Ranger and/or depend on it to have fun. I hope you understand that this is not the case.
    Mornmagor said:


    Edit : Wait what? Are you kidding me? Cleric/Ranger is THE best tank in the game, without using a shield. What does a fighter/cleric do that a cleric/ranger can't do better? He levels up faster as a fighter? Have you seen the progression of a druid? 3m for level 15. Cleric/Ranger is a triple multiclass at the cost of 2 basically.

    If tanking damage were important in ToB, you might have a point.
    Mornmagor said:

    I don't think it's worthless, at all. Having 7th level priest spells, 3rd level druid and the abilities of a fighter plus stealth is useless?

    "Abilities of a fighter" is somewhat misleading, since C/R's can't put more than 2 points in weapon proficiencies or use non-blunt weapons. Stealth is useless for C/R, you are correct.
    Mornmagor said:

    Along with the free 2 slots in 2 weapon fighting at early game.

    I'm not sure how important those proficiency points are for killing kobolds. The "bug fix" you propose would not affect BG1, so discussing low-level play isn't really useful; in ToB, you have plenty of proficiency points.

    I'm not saying Cleric/Rangers are bad, there are plenty of worse classes/kits, but if you're going to solo the game or choose a class that fits a strong party composition, C/R doesn't make the cut.

  • MornmagorMornmagor Member Posts: 1,160
    edited August 2012
    Yes, at their maximum level Cleric/Ranger's should only be able to learn up to level 3 Druid spells along with all Cleric spells (including Cleric and Ranger hla's)
    Fighters who multiclass do not get past 2 points in proficiency slots. You don't get anything as a fighter if you decide to multiclass, the ranger will always have it better.

    In the end, when you multiclass to a cleric with a ranger, you get everything a fighter gets, including HLA, stealth and 2 free points in dual wielding, plus, you get access the whole pool of druid spells. I don't see why someone would ever pick a fighter/cleric over this one, except maybe for role-playing reasons.

    And tanking is important in general, with high AC and iron skins, nothing touches you melee, nothing.

    Saying that, i have to note again, that if they allow you to take one kit when you multiclass, then for the sake of balance cleric/rangers should indeed stay as they are.

  • ElessarElessar Member Posts: 44
    No
    There's also the question of how easy this may or may not be to "fix." I would much rather have the developers spend their limited and valuable time elsewhere, especially since people already self-select out of this by not choosing R/C if they don't want to.

    MedillenRAM021metaentity
  • TanthalasTanthalas Member Posts: 6,738
    No
    Mornmagor said:


    P.S. and off topic - can someone remind me why we can't have elves as cleric/rangers or fighter/clerics? Is it rules or is the engine the problem?

    Its rules. In AD&D I think one of the advantages of being a half-elf is the expanded multi-class options.

    Mornmagor
  • TanthalasTanthalas Member Posts: 6,738
    No
    Elessar said:

    There's also the question of how easy this may or may not be to "fix." I would much rather have the developers spend their limited and valuable time elsewhere, especially since people already self-select out of this by not choosing R/C if they don't want to.

    I believe none of the fixpacks addressed this issue, so I think its possible that the engine itself did not allow it.

    I know that IWD2 had a very different GUI for the magic system. I wonder how they dealt with someone having PLD/RNG/CLR/DRD/MAG/SOR/BRD levels all at the same time.

  • gloinunitgloinunit Member Posts: 25
    No
    Mornmagor said:

    Fighters who multiclass do not get past 2 points in proficiency slots. You don't get anything as a fighter if you decide to multiclass, the ranger will always have it better.

    You don't have a choice, since you can't multiclass as a ranger with very much. This is irrelevant.
    Mornmagor said:

    In the end, when you multiclass to a cleric with a ranger, you get everything a fighter gets, including HLA, stealth and 2 free points in dual wielding, plus, you get access the whole pool of druid spells. I don't see why someone would ever pick a fighter/cleric over this one, except maybe for role-playing reasons.

    If it were overpowered or broken I would agree, but since it isn't, this is irrelevant. Multiclassing in D&D has always been notoriously "unbalanced", and trying to fix it here won't really buy you anything.
    Mornmagor said:

    And tanking is important in general, with high AC and iron skins, nothing touches you melee, nothing.

    Try ToB with the David Gaider hard patches and you'll understand what I meant.
    Mornmagor said:

    Saying that, i have to note again, that if they allow you to take one kit when you multiclass, then for the sake of balance cleric/rangers should indeed stay as they are.

    "For the sake of balance" means nothing to this game. Decisions should be made by only asking the questions "will this change lead to people having less fun or more fun". Obviously, a mechanic that makes the game too easy is not fun. Fortunately, that is not the case here.

    RAM021
  • Roller12Roller12 Member Posts: 437
    No
    [quote]make both fighter/clerics and fighter/druids not needed.[/quote]
    Cleric/Ranger is nowhere near best anything melee. Fighter/Mage holds that place.
    Fighter/cleric has more HLA and cleric spells
    Fighter/druid has more HLA, only druid spells, but more spell slots, much more spell slots.

    BG2 druids have quite a lot of abilities outside just spells. A ranger is not a druid even with full spells.

    mjsRAM021
  • MornmagorMornmagor Member Posts: 1,160
    edited August 2012
    Yes, at their maximum level Cleric/Ranger's should only be able to learn up to level 3 Druid spells along with all Cleric spells (including Cleric and Ranger hla's)
    gloinunit said:



    You don't have a choice, since you can't multiclass as a ranger with very much. This is irrelevant.

    No, it's not irrelevant. We are talking about Cleric/Ranger vs Fighter/Cleric here, not Fighter vs Ranger. A fighter will lose his proficiencies if he multiclasses, a ranger only has to gain from the cleric multiclass, and much more. How is it irrelevant? It's the one thing that makes ANY player who knows the system pick cleric/ranger instead of fighter/cleric with eyes closed.
    gloinunit said:



    If it were overpowered or broken I would agree, but since it isn't, this is irrelevant. Multiclassing in D&D ha.s always been notoriously "unbalanced", and trying to fix it here won't really buy you anything.

    gloinunit said:



    Try ToB with the David Gaider hard patches and you'll understand what I meant.



    I've tried and still have no clue what you're talking about. Have you even played a cleric/ranger to its full potential? He survives WAY longer than a figher/cleric would in the same situation, seriously am i talking with myself here? He survives 5 hits longer at least, before casting iron skins again, and again, and again. And why would an addon/mod that makes things more difficult matter for that reason?
    gloinunit said:



    "For the sake of balance" means nothing to this game. Decisions should be made by only asking the questions "will this change lead to people having less fun or more fun". Obviously, a mechanic that makes the game too easy is not fun. Fortunately, that is not the case here.

    If with being a Cleric/Ranger you can do everything that a fighter, a cleric and a druid would do, why would you play anything else? A game with classes, in order to be fun needs to have SOME balance, since you can't have it 100%. Cleric/Ranger is not balanced, it's a joke. If you had a Berserker/Cleric(multiclass), then things would be different, JUST because of berserk alone and what it brings. You need to stop people from selecting only certain classes because they overshadow anything else.

    Calling everything convieniently irrelevant, doesn't make it so. Cleric/Ranger completely overshadows Fighter/Cleric or Fighter/Druid since it can do BOTH, that's why people suggested that it gets fixed, since it IS a bug that causes this.

    It doesn't make the game more easy? Having all the druid spells conveniently available to you is not making things easier at all, while having all the other benefits we talked about?

    Now if you'll excuse me, since this isn't taking anywhere, i'll be off from this discussion. Have fun.

    Post edited by Mornmagor on
    DukeOfSuffolkSynergeticJaxsbudgie
  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    I agree that, all things being equal, the Ranger/Cleric should function as a Ranger and a Cleric, including the spell limitations. It's kind of at the low end of the priority list for me, though. There are other things I would much rather see fixed.

    Quartz
  • Roller12Roller12 Member Posts: 437
    edited August 2012
    No

    @Mornmagor
    Cleric/Ranger completely overshadows Fighter/Cleric or Fighter/Druid since it can do BOTH, that's why people suggested that it gets fixed, since it IS a bug that causes this.

    It does seem to me that you are theorycrafting a bit, no? The only reason i see so far here is that people call it a "bug" without actually sufficient reason to do so. Why is it a "bug". Bioware sure didnt "fix" it after all the years. Baldurs Gate is not P&P, it is simply impossible. The Druid is the prime example of a class which just cant be completely implemented into a computer game, but it seems to me you dont know about benefits a druid gets, for example Jaheira gets 6 spell slots for level6 and 7 later, no cleric/ranger can ever reach that. And these spells are _powerful_, and also hold HLA spells.

    RAM021
  • MornmagorMornmagor Member Posts: 1,160
    edited August 2012
    Yes, at their maximum level Cleric/Ranger's should only be able to learn up to level 3 Druid spells along with all Cleric spells (including Cleric and Ranger hla's)
    Roller12 said:


    @Mornmagor
    Cleric/Ranger completely overshadows Fighter/Cleric or Fighter/Druid since it can do BOTH, that's why people suggested that it gets fixed, since it IS a bug that causes this.

    It does seem to me that you are theorycrafting a bit, no? The only reason i see so far here is that people call it a "bug" without actually sufficient reason to do so. Why is it a "bug". Bioware sure didnt "fix" it after all the years. Baldurs Gate is not P&P, it is simply impossible. The Druid is the prime example of a class which just cant be completely implemented into a computer game, but it seems to me you dont know about benefits a druid gets, for example Jaheira gets 6 spell slots for level6 and 7 later, no cleric/ranger can ever reach that. And these spells are _powerful_, and also hold HLA spells.


    You don't really need to theorycraft a lot to see the benefits of a cleric/ranger. I did some of it though, a long time ago.

    Bioware also didn't fix 150+ bugs in BG1.

    Well, indeed, it's not P&P, but the cleric/ranger does overshadow the fighter/cleric, as suggested by any guide you come across, for new players. A cleric/ranger with high wisdom can have a lot of 6 and 7 level spells as well. You just need iron skins and creeping doom, to be honest.

    As to why it's considered a "bug", i'm not sure if anyone bothered to clarify if it really is, but having cleric/rangers as they are now, fighter/clerics and fighter/druids, would be the same as having just the cleric/ranger. Unless you count the druid HLA, the ranger however does have some of them too. Ok, maybe the fighter/druid can do something more than spellcasting (barely), but the fighter/cleric? What's his purpose?

    It's like, he can do everything a cleric and a fighter can do, as well as druid spells. He does seem a bit overkill, doesn't he?

  • TanthalasTanthalas Member Posts: 6,738
    No
    Its probably more an oversight than bug.

    Quartz
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,235
    Yes, at their maximum level Cleric/Ranger's should only be able to learn up to level 3 Druid spells along with all Cleric spells (including Cleric and Ranger hla's)
    @Roller12
    By the time you get to level 15 druid in a fighter/druid multiclass (when you get 6 spell slots for level 6 spells) you'd be level 21 as a cleric (in either multiclass). By that point you'd have the same number of level 6 spell slots. Druids like I said have more level 7/HLA, but by-in-large up until the very highest levels clerics have more of every other spell level. If you are multiclassing you aren't going to get any higher than a level 21 druid and a level 25 cleric. But basically, your statement that Cleric/Ranger's are never going to have 6 level 6 spell slots is not true. They'd have them at the same time a fighter/druid would.

  • Roller12Roller12 Member Posts: 437
    No
    A fighter/cleric has a multitude of advantages. First of all he has more HLA, this doesnt seem like much at first, but later in the game, HLA spam is all that is needed from a fighter type, magic is handled by mages, and between GWW, lots of hitpoints and Heals there is not much need for iron skin either, about the only thing he has to fear is magic, disablers, imprisonment etc. And this divine type character has virtually no protection against magic. Unlike fighter/mages.


    Then, a fighter/cleric has no alignment restrictions. Ran/cle must be good. Ftr/cle can be any alignment and consequently can take any bonus in Hells Trials and get base 24 strength, Kill Drizzt with no worries, and generally do stuff. Ran/cle cant.

    On the other hand leaving the ran/cle with just Entagle makes this multiclass completely useless. So i absolutely not see an issue here. All three classes excel in their areas and are fairly balanced, not sure if time should be spend fixing what is working fine already. But thats just me, im not a die-hard P&P fan.

    aerefrygtRAM021
  • Roller12Roller12 Member Posts: 437
    edited August 2012
    No
    @elminster
    Druid progression is generally very uneven, Bioware tried to fit this class into BG2 hard. They level at outrageous speeds in bg1 and beginning of bg2, then suddently stop. With all the stuff being imported into bg1 if they lift the cap id say, and many people will do that regardless, Jaheira, and consequently Ftr/Dru, will be by far the best NPC/class in BGEE. Not that she is weak in vanilla.

  • gloinunitgloinunit Member Posts: 25
    edited August 2012
    No
    Mornmagor said:

    No, it's not irrelevant. We are talking about Cleric/Ranger vs Fighter/Cleric here, not Fighter vs Ranger. A fighter will lose his proficiencies if he multiclasses, a ranger only has to gain from the cleric multiclass, and much more. How is it irrelevant? It's the one thing that makes ANY player who knows the system pick cleric/ranger instead of fighter/cleric with eyes closed.

    The only reason for choosing Cleric/Ranger is that you get to be a Ranger with Iron Skins and Cleric spells. Period. The "drawback" is supposed to be "can only use blunt weapons" but some of the best items in the game are blunt weapons so their only weakness is irrelevant. The fact that a fighter loses his proficiencies for multiclassing is the fighter's problem, not the ranger's.

    No one would choose Fighter/Cleric over Cleric/Ranger even IF they didn't get high level Druid spells. Who cares if Fighter/Cleric is good? Cleric/Thief is terrible too. This discussion leads to a balance discussion, which again, has no place here. I don't understand why this bug, that clearly doesn't affect you, requires this crusade.
    Mornmagor said:

    Irrelevant again eh? No, it's not, and yes, it is overpowered to gain 2 free slots, ALL the druid spells and stealth along with the high level abilities of a fighter, you practically are both a fighter and a druid with extras at no cost. Does overpowered in your language mean to one-shot everything or something?

    You make a valid point that Fighter/Druid is a better comparison to the Cleric/Ranger. If Druid weapons were on par with Cleric weapons, Fighter/Druid would be just as strong as classic Cleric/Ranger. Imagining Jaheira with access to the best weapons in the game makes me drool.
    Mornmagor said:

    I've tried and still have no clue what you're talking about. Have you even played a cleric/ranger to its full potential? He survives WAY longer than a figher/cleric would in the same situation, seriously am i talking with myself here? He survives 5 hits longer at least, before casting iron skins again, and again, and again. And why would an addon/mod that makes things more difficult matter for that reason?

    Is Fighter/Cleric your favorite class? Anyone who makes one clearly doesn't care about making a powerful character, so please stop comparing them. The hard patches make the creatures hit harder and faster, so "outlast" is not a strategy.
    Mornmagor said:

    If with being a Cleric/Ranger you can do everything that a fighter, a cleric and a druid would do, why would you play anything else? A game with classes, in order to be fun needs to have SOME balance, since you can't have it 100%. Cleric/Ranger is not balanced, it's a joke. If you had a Berserker/Cleric(multiclass), then things would be different, JUST because of berserk alone and what it brings. You need to stop people from selecting only certain classes because they overshadow anything else.

    Saying that a Cleric/Ranger is a Fighter, a Cleric, and a Druid, is false. They are better than Clerics who can't put enough points in dual-wielding to be worth anything to a party. They only cast druid spells, but they can't do everything a druid can do, which just so happens to not be that important either. Just because the class is a good combination of other classes doesn't mean it needs to be fixed. As someone has already mentioned, make the existing kits that are horrendous, better. Guess what, some multiclass combinations might not be that smart!
    Mornmagor said:

    Calling everything convieniently irrelevant, doesn't make it so. Cleric/Ranger completely overshadows Fighter/Cleric or Fighter/Druid since it can do BOTH, that's why people suggested that it gets fixed, since it IS a bug that causes this.

    As I said before, multiclassing is unbalanced, and in some cases it is so good that it makes no sense not to multiclass. Why make a Thief? Make a Fighter/Thief, its much better.
    Mornmagor said:

    It doesn't make the game more easy? Having all the druid spells conveniently available to you is not making things easier at all, while having all the other benefits we talked about?

    Other than Iron Skins, none of the unique druid spells are all that exceptional.
    Mornmagor said:

    Now if you'll excuse me, since this isn't taking anywhere, i'll be off from this discussion. Have fun.

    Later, bro.

    RAM021
  • MornmagorMornmagor Member Posts: 1,160
    Yes, at their maximum level Cleric/Ranger's should only be able to learn up to level 3 Druid spells along with all Cleric spells (including Cleric and Ranger hla's)
    I will agree that, there are several things that need rebalancing. But no, it doesn't deserve a crusade of any kind.

    I will also agree that since there is no NPC cleric ranger, it shouldn't affect anyone, although he's stronger than he should have been.

    While i do believe that iron skins and creeping doom alone are enough to give an advantage to the C/R, it is still possible to make a fighter/cleric with such high AC that nothing touches him even in TOB (along with physical resistance and armor of faith - GG).

    So no, i'm not making a crusade against cleric/ranger, i'm just saying that he is more solid than probably designed. Now, if this needs to change? It doesn't need to, but whatever. Normally it would, along with other things, a lot of things (yes Edwin i'm looking at you, stop overshadowing the PC mage).

  • eainterplayeainterplay Member Posts: 55
    edited August 2012
    No
    While considering the arguements for and against fixing this bug, I decided to take a judicial approach to this conflict. In a court when problem arises that is not overtly against the law, judges usually side with the least invasive option or the one that causes the least damage, suffering, problems, etc. In this case that would be leaving the bug in because it is easier to ignore its inclusion than to, as others have suggested, cheat or mod its way into the game.

    Now I know a lot of you are saying "but it is against the rules and therefore unlawful". To that I'd like to point to the numerous eviction lawsuits that were recently denied on the basis of tenant drug use (altough dealers and makers are still subject to eviction). According to the court the use of drugs, while still technically illegal, was less damaging to the property owner than homelessness was to the tenant.

    RAM021
  • JolanthusJolanthus Member Posts: 292
    No
    I've obviously been playing my ranger/cleric wrong in not trying to powergame it. Here I was thinking to use it as an undead hunter.

  • Roller12Roller12 Member Posts: 437
    No
    @gloinunit
    >Is Fighter/Cleric your favorite class? Anyone who makes one clearly doesn't care about making a powerful character, so please stop comparing them.

    Like said, fighter/clerics are free to pick any alignment and thats a huge bonus, for instance they get +3 base str and quite an overpowered longsword just for being evil. Any powergamer would actually choose fighter/cleric over ranger/cleric. Start with half-orc and end with 24 base str completely legit. More is possible too. BGEE adds a playable blackguad and new areas so it would not suprise me if there are some cool evil-only quest rewards as well. Ran/cle miss big time. Not to say they are a no-go in an evil party anyway.

  • MornmagorMornmagor Member Posts: 1,160
    Yes, at their maximum level Cleric/Ranger's should only be able to learn up to level 3 Druid spells along with all Cleric spells (including Cleric and Ranger hla's)
    You don't need base strength though, by the time you have it you will already have crom faeyr and 25 str.

    Powergamers prefer c/r for a reason.

  • Roller12Roller12 Member Posts: 437
    No
    Agree on crom if solo, in a party though there are others who will benefit from it. Basically its another crom for free. And that aside, you asked for a purpose, well its for evil players, seems quite a reasonable purpose in my view. Not everyone wants to be a goody two shoes ranger so these two multiclasses arent quite competing with each other.

  • MornmagorMornmagor Member Posts: 1,160
    Yes, at their maximum level Cleric/Ranger's should only be able to learn up to level 3 Druid spells along with all Cleric spells (including Cleric and Ranger hla's)
    Yeah, i agree that you will choose fighter/cleric for a roleplaying purpose. F/C is immensely strong as well, especially if they allow one kit for multiclass, which i hope they do.

  • AshielAshiel Member Posts: 254
    No
    Oh god, if they allow kit multiclassing, the powergamer in my heart drools something fierce for a kensai/druid or fighter/shapeshifter. Kensai/Thief or Fighter/Assassin might be pretty sexy too. Mage Slayer/Cleric would be amusing methinks (since the cleric buff spells like Draw Upon Holy Might would seriously reduce the drawbacks of Mageslayers).

  • SeriousMikeSeriousMike Member Posts: 38
    Fighter/Cleric can be dwarf or as stated above half-orc. I'm not a powergamer but in my book the huge saving throw bonus of dwarves is a great advantage.

  • AshielAshiel Member Posts: 254
    No
    Darn right it is. +5 to all saves is HUGE. Especially since, for the most part, saves are static in 2E. If you need to roll a 10+ to save against a spell, that +5 is massive. Slapped on anything with the word "Fighter" in it, and you end up with both incredible saving throws and great hit points. A dwarf cleric/fighter can sport a 19 Con (20 with book or other buffs), excellent combat abilities, awesome buffs, and a +5 to all saving throws. That's nothing to sneeze at. The +5 to all saves functions immediately as well, unlike the biggest advantage cleric/rangers have, which is Ironskins.

    Also, dual-classed Ranger/Cleric was a huge disappointment. In retrospect, I'd advise actually multiclassing, or at the very, very least, waiting until after 11th level for the extra 1/2 attack from your ranger levels. I didn't, and I was sad for it.

    The most potent party I ever built though, in a all-PC party, was a group of all short folks. Dwarfs, Haflings, and Gnomes. Everyone was built with a high Constitution, and most of them were multiclassed with a few single classed characters in the mix. They were AWESOME. Their saving throws alone were enough to justify rocking shorties. The fact that you also got a good mix of martial prowess (Fighters and Fighter/Clerics), problem solvers (Fighter/Thieves), and arcane power (gnomes are pretty good here), and the result was a very strong and well-rounded party that also had incredible saving throws.

    Quartz
  • evil_apeevil_ape Member Posts: 32
    No
    I think this might be one of the biggest non-problems discussed on these forums. A player who is aware of this bug (which I call a feature) and does not wish to play with a Ranger/Cleric as not intended by 2E rules simply has to not memorize any druid-only spells.

    Also, I think it's silly to say that a Ranger/Cleric basically is a Fighter/Druid/Cleric in just two classes. A Druid gains some abilities like elemental resistance (something that is great in ToB), poison immunity, Greater Elemental Summoning and they get to use Belm. But, after all, balancing between classes is not a real issue, because this is no PvP game and neither is it a multiplayer game you play with unknown people.

    This is something that simply does not need fixing.

    RAM021
  • IchigoRXCIchigoRXC Member Posts: 1,001
    There are loads of things that don't adhere to strict second edition rules. This could be because of engine limitation or mere translation from Pen and paper to videogame. Either way, this is something that is not high on my list to be *fixed*. People like it, so leave it be.

    RAM021
  • MokonaMokona Member Posts: 89
    Cleric/Ranger? A silly character.

Sign In or Register to comment.