Skip to content

cleric/mage vs fighter/mage THROUGHOUT the saga.

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.
OrlonKronsteen

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited May 2017
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
    JuliusBorisovOrlonKronsteen
  • MyragMyrag Member Posts: 328
    Elfs get nice 90% protection against charm/sleep and +1 (5% hit chance) to longswords which is cool for FM especially early in BG1. Extra dex doesn't really give them anything besides ranged thac0. There might be fights where you will want to stay away from melee and use bow in that case so then you would appreciate extra thac0 from dex and +1 for bows from elf racial. -1 constitution means tiny bit less HP though.

    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.

    OrlonKronsteen
  • SomeSortSomeSort Member Posts: 859
    I'd say F/M over C/M. Cleric spells are useful, and you definitely need a healer somewhere in your party for quality-of-life reasons, but a Fighter/Mage gets +0.5 APR from day one (thanks to weapon specialization), plus another 0.5 APR towards the end of BG1 (from hitting level 7), and another 0.5 APR midway through SoA (from level 13), plus potentially another APR from dual-wielding, (which Clerics can do, but not without penalties), plus potentially *ANOTHER* APR from dual-wielding a speed weapon (Belm or Kundane, neither of which are available to Clerics).

    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.
    OrlonKronsteen
  • SloaneRangerSloaneRanger Member Posts: 17
    Any combination with a mage cannot wear armor so they are out as melee characters. They should only be missile users when not spell casting. Yes there are spells to armor up your mage but in the beginning you get better protection from real armor and it will stay that for a very very long time. That makes an elf fighter/mage better as the character can use bows and get a racial THAC0 +1 in addition to the 1 point you can add to the weapon skill. It makes a significant difference in how often your character avoids dying by being able to kill the low level monsters first. Gnomes will make better mages in the end but an elf will survive better until then.
  • ZilberZilber Member Posts: 253
    Do keep in mind that gnomes are slower, which does add frustration sometimes
  • BigfishBigfish Member Posts: 367

    Any combination with a mage cannot wear armor so they are out as melee characters. They should only be missile users when not spell casting. Yes there are spells to armor up your mage but in the beginning you get better protection from real armor and it will stay that for a very very long time. That makes an elf fighter/mage better as the character can use bows and get a racial THAC0 +1 in addition to the 1 point you can add to the weapon skill. It makes a significant difference in how often your character avoids dying by being able to kill the low level monsters first. Gnomes will make better mages in the end but an elf will survive better until then.

    A fighter/mage slicing it up in melee is generally fine in Baldur's Gate. Access to wands and scrolls gives you plenty of magic power, so wearing armor isn't really an issue.
  • OrlonKronsteenOrlonKronsteen Member Posts: 905
    edited May 2017
    According to the rules, only half-elves can be C/Ms, and not elves. You can change this with EE Keeper, of course. As for F/M being used for melee or ranged - in the early going melee is a rough sell, but once you get mirror image and stoneskin or
    the elven chain mail armour
    it's game on. But as mentioned earlier, ranged rules in BG 1 so there's no reason not to start out that way and switch to melee in BG2 (or late BG1). C/Ms can be good in melee, but it takes a lot of micromanagement and if melee is what you're interested in as a theme I'd be tempted, for reasons stated earlier, to go with the F/M for naturally better THACO and APR. C/M are fun to use as casters, imho. They start out as all-around useful characters and develop, if you have the patience to learn the different tactics and mage/cleric spell combos, into magical powerhouses. I also agree with others about which to use in good and evil play-throughs.
    Post edited by OrlonKronsteen on
  • SomeSortSomeSort Member Posts: 859
    edited May 2017

    Any combination with a mage cannot wear armor so they are out as melee characters. They should only be missile users when not spell casting. Yes there are spells to armor up your mage but in the beginning you get better protection from real armor and it will stay that for a very very long time. That makes an elf fighter/mage better as the character can use bows and get a racial THAC0 +1 in addition to the 1 point you can add to the weapon skill. It makes a significant difference in how often your character avoids dying by being able to kill the low level monsters first. Gnomes will make better mages in the end but an elf will survive better until then.

    The protection difference between a mage and an armor-user isn't that big.

    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.
    semiticgoddess
  • TerhidTerhid Member Posts: 11
    Thanks all for the answers, they are certainly helpful.
    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?

  • tbone1tbone1 Member Posts: 1,985
    I didn't pay much heed to the C/M until I had Aerie through ToB and realized what I'd been missing. (Ditto with Anomen and the F->C.) I think the F/M is more powerful, but the C/M is more fun; nothing like stringing a couple Bolts of Glory into a Contingency to brighten the day of Your Friendly Neighborhood Paladin. And the cleric buffs can make you a good frontline fighter for a boss fight.
  • SloaneRangerSloaneRanger Member Posts: 17
    SomeSort said:


    The protection difference between a mage and an armor-user isn't that big.

    But nothing will change the lower hit points you will get with a f/m or c/m because of the mage part. The computer combat algorithm will now sometimes concentrate all the attacks on one character. If that character has low hit points, that character will die fast. It seems to happen most often in melee combat.

    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
  • abacusabacus Member Posts: 1,307

    SomeSort said:


    The protection difference between a mage and an armor-user isn't that big.

    But nothing will change the lower hit points you will get with a f/m or c/m because of the mage part. The computer combat algorithm will now sometimes concentrate all the attacks on one character. If that character has low hit points, that character will die fast. It seems to happen most often in melee combat.

    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
    With proper tactics, HP shouldn't be a factor. When mages get physical, that should have their defensive spells arrayed such that they never even take damage. Stoneskins, PfMW, Mirror Images, Blur, Improved Invisibility, etc.

    It requires significant prebuffing, which may not be your thing, but when done properly and with appropriate redundancies & contingencies... they're practically invincible.
    SomeSort
  • SomeSortSomeSort Member Posts: 859
    edited May 2017
    Yeah, stoneskins or mirror image alone are worth more than extra HP. If an enemy is hitting you for 8 damage a shot, and you get four images / skins, that's 32 damage it's absorbing. With both, that's 64 damage. By level 20 you're getting 8 images and 10 skins, and if enemies are doing 12 damage a hit that's 216 damage you're negating. And unlike pure fighters who can't do anything once their HP starts going, the F/M can refresh images and skins at will.

    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.
    semiticgoddess
  • The_CheesemanThe_Cheeseman Member Posts: 175
    I'd like to point out, in reference to the armor comparison above, that full plate mail is a LOT better than armor spells. Full plate not only has a base AC of 1, but also has a -4 AC modifier against slashing and -3 against missile and piercing attacks, making it have an effective AC of at least -2 against most attacks. Combine it with the Girdle of Bluntness and you can pretty easily floor to-hit rate for most of BG1.
  • abacusabacus Member Posts: 1,307

    I'd like to point out, in reference to the armor comparison above, that full plate mail is a LOT better than armor spells. Full plate not only has a base AC of 1, but also has a -4 AC modifier against slashing and -3 against missile and piercing attacks, making it have an effective AC of at least -2 against most attacks. Combine it with the Girdle of Bluntness and you can pretty easily floor to-hit rate for most of BG1.

    Agreed. Unenchanted full plate is the best armour in either game (due to its ability to combine with other magic items). But the discussion is for the entire saga, and when they start to appear magic protections (other than simple armour-replacement spells) are unambiguously better.


    You can also throw in some Fire Shields for free damage.
  • SloaneRangerSloaneRanger Member Posts: 17
    abacus said:



    With proper tactics, HP shouldn't be a factor. When mages get physical, that should have their defensive spells arrayed such that they never even take damage. Stoneskins, PfMW, Mirror Images, Blur, Improved Invisibility, etc.

    It requires significant prebuffing, which may not be your thing, but when done properly and with appropriate redundancies & contingencies... they're practically invincible.

    First, your proper tactics can be nullified by the artificial stupidity that is the combat AI. It loves to have mages rush into a mob of monsters to cast long range spells face to face. In the larger battles in ToB you will be constantly hitting the space bar and trying to find where your mage is located in all the monsters.

    Second, the dragons fight smart. They all will cast dispel magic on your characters nullifying any buff spells and forcing a recasting of them. Until then your mage is vulnerable. And a dragon can kill your mage with one blow. HP matters with some monsters.
  • SomeSortSomeSort Member Posts: 859

    I'd like to point out, in reference to the armor comparison above, that full plate mail is a LOT better than armor spells. Full plate not only has a base AC of 1, but also has a -4 AC modifier against slashing and -3 against missile and piercing attacks, making it have an effective AC of at least -2 against most attacks. Combine it with the Girdle of Bluntness and you can pretty easily floor to-hit rate for most of BG1.

    Yeah, for sure, and it's the big reason why Ankheg Plate isn't as good as everyone thinks it is, (its modifiers aren't anywhere near Full Plate's).

    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.)
    semiticgoddess
  • SomeSortSomeSort Member Posts: 859

    Second, the dragons fight smart. They all will cast dispel magic on your characters nullifying any buff spells and forcing a recasting of them. Until then your mage is vulnerable. And a dragon can kill your mage with one blow. HP matters with some monsters.

    Spell Immunity: Abjuration makes you immune to dispel magic, and by the time you're fighting Dragons you can always just have a second round of your buff spells ready to go in a Sequencer and/or Trigger, (complete with an extra copy of Spell Immunity: Abjuration).

    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).
    semiticgoddess
  • BigfishBigfish Member Posts: 367
    SomeSort said:

    I'd like to point out, in reference to the armor comparison above, that full plate mail is a LOT better than armor spells. Full plate not only has a base AC of 1, but also has a -4 AC modifier against slashing and -3 against missile and piercing attacks, making it have an effective AC of at least -2 against most attacks. Combine it with the Girdle of Bluntness and you can pretty easily floor to-hit rate for most of BG1.

    Yeah, for sure, and it's the big reason why Ankheg Plate isn't as good as everyone thinks it is, (its modifiers aren't anywhere near Full Plate's).
    Can't speak for everyone else, but the reason Ankheh Plate IS awesome is the low STR requirement, early availability, and ability to be worn by some classes that are otherwise restricted. It's not as good as Full Plate when you can actually equip it, but it is the best you can do for certain characters.
    tbone1semiticgoddess
  • SomeSortSomeSort Member Posts: 859
    edited May 2017
    Bigfish said:

    Can't speak for everyone else, but the reason Ankheh Plate IS awesome is the low STR requirement, early availability, and ability to be worn by some classes that are otherwise restricted. It's not as good as Full Plate when you can actually equip it, but it is the best you can do for certain characters.

    Yes. Full Plate is the best armor, Ankheg Plate is the best armor for those who can't equip Full Plate. (Viconia, for instance, looks great in green.)

    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.
  • SloaneRangerSloaneRanger Member Posts: 17
    SomeSort said:


    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,

    When I played a fighter type, by the time of ToB, they are such super tanks that I can just sit back and let them fight on auto for most battles. No macromanagement much less micromanagement needed. So the difference between a mage and a fighter is a difference that is irrelevant by the end of the series. And in the beginning of BG1, fighters are much more survivable than any mage.

    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.
  • fatelessfateless Member Posts: 330
    Fighters can be monsters in their own right. if I really do up a fighter For much of the games it doesn't take a heck of a lot of damage and on top of that it slowly regens. Granted that is fairly slow through BG and a fair bit of SoA. (DD's can get it a bit higher and a bit faster). That combined with a strong Tower Shield, the sword and shield fighting style at 2pips, and a decent array of magic resistance items. And It almost trivializes a fair bit of ranged combat.
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,651
    Frankly, there is never a time when either are suffering. Right from the get go you got command, sleep, maybe a meat shield familiar, etc. This a depending on your playstyle case to me.

    No contest in terms of dual classing though. F/M it is.
    alboy
  • WesboiWesboi Member Posts: 403
    Thing with clerics u get a lot of useful healing spells but no need for healing if you CC effectively F/M is far better IMHO I kinda feel clerics are overated. As I play with a brute force style and go damage/CC over healing/support.
  • GallowglassGallowglass Member Posts: 3,356
    With a party, using a C/M in melee is a ridiculous misallocation of resources. The C/M is the most versatile caster in the game, casting is what s/he's good at, so keep him/her at the back as a caster and let someone else in the party do the gory up-close work. Your C/M will occasionally be forced into melee range when ambushed, but it's rarely sensible to melee by choice.

    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.
  • DhariusDharius Member Posts: 654
    edited May 2017
    I'm using that elven pre-gen F/M from BGEE (Canderous) at the moment. The elf proficiency in longsword is very useful. And I think the noodle arms are cool. He's alright but I'd really prefer a F/M to have a high DEX as they need the AC (there aren't many decent spellcasting armours or bracers in BGEE).

    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.
  • WesboiWesboi Member Posts: 403
    Nothing is as powerful as FMT go solo and flex your might!
Sign In or Register to comment.