Howdy, Stranger!

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

Categories

Axis & Allies 1942 Online is now available in Early Access! Buy it on Steam. The FAQ is available.
New Premium Module: Tyrants of the Moonsea! Read More
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Ranger/Clerics no longer get Druid spells?

Hey guys, I just started playing again on my iPad after a year or so and a few hours into my solo Ranger/Cleric I realized that I wasn't getting staple spells like Insect Swarm or Iron Skins like I used to. This was my favourite class back in the day and I'm having a hard time deciding what to play so I just went with ol' reliable.

Is this intentional? I don't know if it was originally a bug but it made the class have its own flavour compared to a Fighter/Cleric. If it's intentional, is there any fix for it on iOS?

Thanks for any help!

«1

Comments

  • WowoWowo Member Posts: 2,058
    Yep it's a bug that has been fixed, all hail the bug fixers!

  • YannirYannir Member Posts: 595
    Wowo said:

    Yep it's a bug that has been fixed, all hail the bug fixers!

    Can't tell if sarcasm or not...

    ThacoBell
  • sparrow13xsparrow13x Member Posts: 120
    edited August 2015

    It was considered a bug and patched out, but you can re-enable it in Baldur.ini by setting:

    'Game Options', 'Cleric Ranger Spells', '1' - to zero.

    I'm playing the game on my iPad so editing the .ini file like we used to back in the day doesn't work for me. I've been tempted to buy the game on my computer but I like the portability of my iPad too much to justify spending another $30+.

    When I first bought the game a while back the Ranger/Cleric was untouched so they must have patched it in later? I guess the fact that they used to get Druid spells was probably not intentional but I didn't think it was game-breaking either. I mean yeah, getting Iron Skins was nice, but other than that and a few other utility spells they weren't much different than a Fighter/Cleric. The class felt unique compared to other multis.

    I wish they had left this one bug alone.

    GallowglassThacoBellleeuxgorgonzola
  • valamyrvalamyr Member Posts: 109
    It might have been unintended but I believe its a minor bug at most. Back when I played a Ranger Cleric have access to both sets of spells was cool and thematic. Personally I wouldn't consider it cheating to flip it back to how it was. But some people seem to think its a huge deal for some reason, probably Iron Skins.

  • FinaLfrontFinaLfront Member Posts: 260
    More than just Iron Skins, since R/C is even more a slap in the face to the pure Druid than what being a Cleric already is to the pure Druid.

  • YannirYannir Member Posts: 595
    Let's try not to open up this particular can of worms again.. I'm alrdy seeing atleast two points of argument here, and I'd like this thread to not turn into one. The .ini file is a solution if you have your game on a PC, but if somebody has a solution for other platforms, please share it.

    JuliusBorisovYelocessej
  • James_MJames_M Member Posts: 126
    edited December 2015
    That is an irksome change implemented first in EE 1.3, and I just noticed it today while playing Cleric/Ranger. It wasn't so in EE 1.2.

    Rangers and Cleric/Rangers still get Druid spells - I can see that spells in level 1-4 are the same Druid spells as what Jaheira has. All the Druid level 5 spells are missing from the Cleric/Ranger's spellbook. That is wierd. Gonna fix that... UPDATE: I did "fix that" but, on second thought, gonna try to complete SoA without using Iron Skins or other level 5+ Druid spells. Basically rest more often and use Righteous Magic instead. Jaheira may just end-up as the party leader (so "protagonist by Jaheira's side" rather than "Jaheira by my side").

    Post edited by James_M on
  • Avenger_teambgAvenger_teambg Member, Developer Posts: 5,862
    Don't ranger/clerics get their druid spells when their ranger levels are sufficient?

    DJKajuru
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,456
    @Avenger_teambg Yes, but they used to get all druid spells level 1-7 so it's a huge nerf.

    elminsterThacoBell
  • GallowglassGallowglass Member Posts: 3,356
    @James_M - you ought to be getting only level 1-3 of Druid spells, not 1-4, because that's all a single-class Ranger gets.

    @Avenger_teambg - so far as I know, yes. To test, I just now created one in ToB, and it had level 1-3 Druid spells (and loads of Cleric spells) as expected. However, I haven't tried getting to the appropriate level of Ranger by actually playing one through, since before the patch in which Druid spells were restricted. (And in fact, I doubt I'll ever use that class again, since it was only ever the "bug" which made it a worthwhile alternative to a F/C.)

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,175
    edited December 2015

    they used to get all druid spells level 1-7 so it's a huge nerf fix.

    fixed that for you

  • TymakerTymaker Member Posts: 105
    Talk about having the best of both worlds. But the Ranger side should still get druid spells as per normal.

  • GallowglassGallowglass Member Posts: 3,356
    Tymaker said:

    But the Ranger side should still get druid spells as per normal.

    Ah, well, yes, but what's "normal" is the point. C/R used to get Druid spells as per normal for a Druid, now C/R gets Druid spells as per normal for a Ranger.

    Of course the latter is more logical, but the trouble is that fixing the logic has removed the main point of being a C/R at all. It's gone from being an exceptionally strong class (okay, yes, perhaps too strong) to being a pretty pointless class, all in one move, which is a very severe nerf. I'd have been fine with enforcing the more logical model if there had been a way to make the effect less drastic, but there's no obvious way they could have done that, it's an all-or-nothing issue. Since the less logical version was very well-established as a quirk of the game for all these years, I'd rather they had just announced that they had decided to leave it alone. But never mind, what's done is done.

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,175
    edited December 2015

    C/R used to get Druid spells as per normal for a Druid, now C/R gets Druid spells as per normal for a Ranger.

    Of course the latter is more logical,

    Yes. But let's seriously not rehash the debate about this. The change has been made, it's not going back.

    but the trouble is ... It's gone from being an exceptionally strong class (okay, yes, perhaps too strong) to being a pretty pointless class,

    Disagree. (This on the other hand is totally worth discussing.) I can't find where the most recent thread is on this, in which a lot of good points were made. But suffice to say, R/C (and to a lesser extent, R->C) are totally viable choices, roughly as powerful as most other class choices, excepting only the most cheesy powergame builds.

  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,087
    I see little reason to go F/C over R/C. You trade slightly worse XP progression for quite a bit of utility. Without GM or kit bonuses in the mix, Fighters have little going for them.

    Dual-class, the story is very different. I'd NEVER dual from a Ranger into a Cleric; there is almost no reason to do this, given that the Ranger kit bonuses aren't stellar (except Archer, which can't dual) and you don't have Grand Mastery either way. You very slightly shift the XP balance towards the Cleric part, but at higher levels that is practically irrelevant - especially considering you pay for it by not having access to fighter HLAs.

    Dualing from Fighter, on the other hand, is much better. You gain some very good kit bonuses, and most importantly access to Grand Mastery. You do lose Fighter HLAs here as well, but that isn't that big a deal considering you can get naturally high APR from GM. It's not an automatic win over the multiclass, but you could make a very good argument for it being the better option.

  • GallowglassGallowglass Member Posts: 3,356

    But let's seriously not rehash the debate about this. The change has been made, it's not going back.

    *exasperated sigh*
    I explained the point for the benefit of the OP, who evidently hadn't been aware of the history of this change, but I SAID "never mind, what's done is done". It's you who is continuing to re-hash.

    I can't find where the most recent thread is on this, in which a lot of good points were made. But suffice to say, R/C (and to a lesser extent, R->C) are totally viable choices, roughly as powerful as most other class choices, excepting only the most cheesy powergame builds.

    R->C is a different issue, let's not muddy the waters.

    Of course C/R is still playable if you want, so I didn't say it wasn't "viable". I described it above as "pointless" because it's no longer nearly so distinctive, it's much more like a F/C now, and IMO a slightly inferior version of a F/C (mainly because F/C levels faster and further).

    Now it's my turn to say "let's seriously not rehash the debate about this", because it's already been discussed extensively in that previous thread to which you refer.

    sarevok57ThacoBell
  • PantalionPantalion Member Posts: 2,137
    I find it curious that it is considered "logical" that the nature oriented outdoorsman is only nature oriented in the specific slots granted to them by being a ranger. Personally the distinction feels extremely gamey and artificial, especially considering that clerics of nature deities are a thing. Where is the divide that is supposed to feel natural? Does a nature oriented divine spellcaster feel logically opposed to summoning some Nymphs to help? Insects? Enchanting some seeds? I can accept it being a balance-fix, since it makes Druids and Fighter/Clerics feel sad, but in terms of theme and logic the only problem is that Clerics should have been able to pick their spell access in the first place.

    Incidentally, I assume that part of this fix is that the Cleric/Ranger gets up to three additional level 1, 2 and 3 spell slots as they should? I confess I've not yet checked.

    JuliusBorisovThacoBell
  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,087
    Pantalion said:

    I find it curious that it is considered "logical" that the nature oriented outdoorsman is only nature oriented in the specific slots granted to them by being a ranger.

    I'm not sure I follow. A single-class Ranger gets the exact same Druid spells that a R/C hybrid would at the same Ranger level. Are you saying Rangers in general should get all the Druid spells? That obviously doesn't make sense, otherwise what would make Druids special?

    Sure, Rangers are versed in the outdoors, but there's more to being able to use high-level nature-based magic than just knowing your way around the woods.

    subtledoctor
  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,175
    Pantalion said:

    I find it curious that it is considered "logical" that the nature oriented outdoorsman is only nature oriented in the specific slots granted to them by being a ranger.
    ...
    Does a nature oriented divine spellcaster feel logically opposed to summoning some Nymphs to help? Insects? Enchanting some seeds?
    ...
    the only problem is that Clerics should have been able to pick their spell access in the first place.

    A forthcoming mod that I'm helping with is going to address this:
    https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/43174/faiths-and-powers-gods-of-the-realms-kitpack-and-divine-caster-spell-tweaks#latest

    It adds a sphere system based around which deity you worship. So clerics whose deity has dominion over plants can cast Entangle/Barkskin, and those whose deity has dominion over elemental earth can cast Stoneskin.

    We are planning to include multiclass kits, so for ranger/clerics you could be devoted to Mielikki or Shaundakul, and your spell list will differ slightly depending on the choice.

    Dualling from ranger to cleric is a tougher but to crack, because you become a so-called "generic cleric." For those clerics we will either just give a set of generic cleric-y spells, or else give NO spells until you choose a deity (in which case it will wipe out your kit abilities from your first class...!)

    tl;dr: what you say makes sense, but it implies a sphere system, and the only way to implement that is with a mod. (And the only such mod currently working on the EE games is the beta version of mine.)

    GallowglassPantalion
  • PantalionPantalion Member Posts: 2,137

    Pantalion said:

    I find it curious that it is considered "logical" that the nature oriented outdoorsman is only nature oriented in the specific slots granted to them by being a ranger.

    I'm not sure I follow. A single-class Ranger gets the exact same Druid spells that a R/C hybrid would at the same Ranger level. Are you saying Rangers in general should get all the Druid spells? That obviously doesn't make sense, otherwise what would make Druids special?

    Sure, Rangers are versed in the outdoors, but there's more to being able to use high-level nature-based magic than just knowing your way around the woods.
    By the rules, what should be making druids "special" should be their weapon selection, armour selection, and ability to shapechange. A lot of their other abilities are difficult to implement in the infinity engine, but it would generally revolve around things like being immune to natural creatures' charm spells, being able to move through difficult natural terrain like thorns and entangling plants, and being able to communicate with fey species.

    Anyway to your question, a single class Ranger gets 3 spell slots in level 1, 2 and 3 (I assume from your answer they are indeed granted to the Cleric/Ranger now?). I think in those spellslots, they should (and do? I don't play single class) have access to druid spells in the spell slots available to them. It "makes sense" that Rangers are nature oriented guys who don't spend much time learning magic, but what magic they get is nature oriented.

    A Cleric/Ranger, on the other hand, gets up to level 7 spell slots, and in terms of the character, the divide between "ranger slots" and "cleric slots" is largely artificial, particularly in Baldur's Gate. They just have "X spell slots". The idea that their divine spells are influenced by their affiliation with nature as an overall "Ranger/Cleric person" makes just as much sense as the idea that an evil cleric gets different spells to a good one.

    So here is a cleric who is more focused on fighting - but less than Fighters - and focused on divine casting - More than anyone else, since she has two divine caster classes, with some focus on both Spiritual (cleric) and Natural (druid) domains.
    As a result, she gave up some spell casting power (which otherwise for C/Rs should have been 12/12/12/9/9/7/3 at cap, as it is now) to instead use spells from both sides.

    That's a cool character theme, and I am posing that it makes sense (is logical). The issue with Cleric/Ranger casting has always been strictly mechanical, not logical, and even then, it's only a mechanical issue within the game, not AD&D as a whole where clerics aren't restricted to one specific spell list.


    @subtledoctor You're quite right I'm thinking in terms of sphere access, and I've certainly been eyeing your mods with great interest for my next playthrough, since it feels like that's how it should have been in the beginning.

    FinneousPJThacoBellDJKajuru
  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,087
    I would assume that since a R/C is also a cleric and thus MUCH more well-versed in spellcasting, that's why they have an easier time casting druid spells as well. A ranger may have a connection to nature, but as I said, that's not all there is to it; a R/C has both an affinity for nature and the wisdom of casting spells properly, which is why they get extra spell slots to fill even with non-Cleric-only spells.

  • PantalionPantalion Member Posts: 2,137
    Alright, I've managed to check. Cleric/Rangers still do not get the spells they should receive from their Ranger levels at 600,000 Exp an onwards, only basic Cleric spellslots (the class should have, at 21 Wisdom, no less than 15 spells in level 1, 2 and 3 by 5.4 million exp).

    At least Multiclass fighters are pointless and terrible (because learning to stop time and turn into an illithid is apparently easier than learning to attack once more often every twelve seconds with a club) so the Cleric/Ranger is only mildly worse, but it's still not getting nearly what it's supposed to.

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,175
    edited December 2015
    R/Cs get:
    - the 2nd widest variety of spells available
    - stealth
    - extra proficiencies in the most powerful fighting style
    - the 2nd highest APR possible

    They can scout, they can heal, they can buff/tank/dps, they can spell-bomb... I'm trying, and failing, to understand how anyone can see them as "pointless."

    thespaceDJKajuru
  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,087
    I wouldn't call them "pointless", I just find it difficult to get them to work in the right niche, personally. Druid spells seem fairly weak, especially the lower level ones, and a Fighter->Cleric dual (or Cleric->Fighter even) often provides very much the same things a R/C does, only with better damage output.

    I would however definitely say that they are one of the best multiclasses, if not the best.

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,175
    Well the dual-classing mechanic is totally stupid and broken, and also violates the game rules about how proficiencies work, and everyone only ever compares the finished product, and not the part in the middle where they are no fun to play. So comparing any multi combo to any dual combo is completely apples-to-oranges anyway.

    I was just addressing Gallowglass's suggestion that R/C is "pointless" if they don't have Ironskins and Creeping Doom. I think they are anything but pointless. In fact it is the most potent and well-rounded utility class in the game.

    Pantalion
  • PantalionPantalion Member Posts: 2,137
    edited December 2015

    R/Cs get:
    - the 2nd widest variety of spells available
    - stealth
    - extra proficiencies in the most powerful fighting style
    - the 2nd highest APR possible

    They can scout, they can heal, they can buff/tank/dps, they can spell-bomb... I'm trying, and failing, to understand how anyone can see them as "pointless."

    If you're referring to my post, note that I call multiclass Fighters pointless, not Cleric/Rangers. Since multiclass fighters cannot specialise beyond 2 pips (for no good reason) the only difference between a F/C and a C/R is ~3 fewer HP at cap and slightly slower level progression in exchange for 1 more proficiency pip and everything else the Ranger side offers.

    So yeah, while Cleric/Ranger offers less than it should, the only reason not to be Cleric/Ranger instead of Fighter/Cleric is to be one of the better (short) races, because Fighter offers nothing at all a Ranger doesn't.


    I'm not sure I agree with your list, however.

    While you're correct that it does give them the widest variety of cleric spells available of any class, their increased spell access does not give them the second widest variety of spells. An extra 6 spells do not put them ahead of any mage class.

    Secondly, I would suggest all but one or two of these extra spells are largely forgettable. Level 1 and 2 druid spells are terrible, and level 3 Druid Spells are gained at 2.4 million XP "when the ranger would gain access to them". At 2.4 million XP, the cleric/ranger can cast level 6 spells, being able to cast Call Lightning and Summon Insects (the lame one that requires a save) is not significantly better than the Holy Smites the C/R probably used in abundance the first 12 levels of their character.

    Stealth, I would argue, isn't important, because Clerics get Sanctuary. With Sanctuary they can scout, loot, and cast pre-buff spells (including Find Traps) without becoming "visible" again. All stealth offers is more micromanagement or leather armour wearing.

    Extra proficiencies works out to 1 extra pip over a Fighter/Cleric by cap. It's nice, but hardly a deal breaker towards mid-SoA since any cleric which only needs a fraction of the proficiencies they get to be effective.
    Likewise, I would put them third in terms of APR. TWF single/dual classed Fighters > Non-cleric TWF fighter multiclasses (since they can offhand APR increasing items) > TWF Warrior/Clerics & non-TWFers > Non-Warriors.

    So yeah, they can Scout, heal (am I the only one who never preps healing spells on my clerics?), buff, tank, DPS and bomb... Just about as well as the Fighter/Cleric in all those things, and they have to be the second worst race instead of dwarf/gnomes (better tanks thanks to Con and shorty saves) or half-orcs (better DPS thanks to higher natural Strength, potentially saving Crom Faeyr for someone else).

    I would however definitely say that they are one of the best multiclasses, if not the best.

    I'd enjoy going discussing capability of the various multiclasses, but I feel that might be a bit off topic. For a CHARNAME only multiclass to cover the same roles as the Cleric/Ranger, however, have you tried Fighter/Mage/Cleric?

    They're actually pretty great if you think of them in terms of Fighter/Clerics that get more, rather than Mage/Clerics that get less, and if you've not played the triple classes before, their levelling speed isn't nearly so painful as one might think, even in a full party.

    3 fewer proficiencies 3 lower THAC0, and 1 fewer HLAs, but you get slightly better saves and level 8 mage casting. This includes Polymorph Self, great Sequencers for using both Mage and Cleric spells, some great party buffs (Haste and Improved Haste are the big ones), and extraordinary tanking utility spells - Spell Immunity, Stoneskins, Mirror Image, Protection from Magical Weapons... Not to mention Simulacrum later on.

    GoturalFinneousPJ
  • GallowglassGallowglass Member Posts: 3,356
    I'm getting bored with this thread because it's re-hashing so much that has been said before. Nevertheless ...
    Pantalion said:

    ... the only reason not to be Cleric/Ranger instead of Fighter/Cleric is to be one of the better (short) races, because Fighter offers nothing at all a Ranger doesn't ...

    As well as being able to choose a more advantageous race (shorty saves!), the other particular advantage of a F/C is that it spends most of the game 1-2 levels higher in its warrior class (0 at the start, 3 levels and 3 HLAs at cap), so overall it can perform a little better in combat. I reckon those two advantages for a F/C are slightly more valuable than the rather minor specific advantages of a C/R (now that it's nerfed), and that's why I reckon the C/R has become rather pointless ... but obviously I can see (and knew all along) that there's room for arguing the other side of this question, since I'll agree that it's a close call, they're obviously very similar in many ways.

Sign In or Register to comment.