ranger/cleric or mage/cleric

[Zara]

im going to play through the entire saga and im wondering which would be better for someone who has only played a fighter mage/cleric sounds more fun but it seems like it would only be for someone who has played through the games multiple times

[Sigma]

I feel like the ranger/cleric combination is a huge mess because of the cleric restrictions. If you dual class and start wtih the ranger, the ranger kits are complete garbage.

Archers make you specialize into bows and crossbows but clerics restricts the use of them. Kit= useless.
Stalker lets you backstab but are restricted to clubs for backstabbing because again, cleric. Kit= near useless.
Beastmasters can't use metal weapons like warhammers and morning stars even though clerics can, so for melee they are restricted to clubs and quarterstaves. Um... really just clubs because of dual wielding.

With that said the ranger/cleric is best if you like/want that character to use blunt/weapons and preferred if dual wield. Ranger starts with 2 points that are free into 2 weapon style so why not use them? For a ranger they sure can't do their job right if their other class is a cleric. Might as well roll a fighter/ranger because they are better fighters. The one benefit a ranger has over a fighter is easier higher rolls in character generation. You can hit 90+ abilities scores in a matter of minutes but a fighter may take 20 minutes to see even 1.

Mage/cleric would be interesting but most used as a party buffer and long rage crowd control/aoe damage dealer. Clerics can use the blunt weapons and you can prebuff with ghost armor, blurr, mirror image for a near unhittable target in melee. They may not deal nearly as much damage as a pure fighter but they sure are versatile.

If you want to complicate things, Ranger/Cleric is the choice. Otherwise Mage/cleric would be a fun spellcasting nightmare of a playthrough.

[fauxpas]

Mage/Cleric sounds like more fun to me.

[wendigo211]

Without the Mystic Theurge, I'm not a fan of the Mage/Cleric hybrid because of how much it slows down your progression. It's not fun when you need level 9 spells and the best you have is level 7 because of the multiclass XP split. I suppose a Cleric dualed to a mage could be somewhat useful, you can use a shield, you get some extra hit points from the cleric side and a few useful buffs. Although I would rather play a pure mage or a pure cleric.

The point of Ranger/Cleric used to be that your Cleric got access to Druid spells. So you would take a Ranger to level 7 (1/2 attack per round) and then dual it to Cleric. On the melee side it's not as good as the Fighter/Cleric because Grand Mastery>>Specialization, but you would have a Cleric who could cast Iron Skins and Insect Plague. That bug has been patched out, so there is no point to making a Ranger/Cleric.

Stay away from the multiclassed Fighter/Cleric and Ranger/Cleric. Cleric THAC0 gets down to 5, so it really is all about the extra attacks if you combine it with Fighter or Ranger. You get an extra 1/2 attack per round at level 7 and another at level 13. So dualing at level 7 is much better than multiclassing (and in BG 2 you will get enough XP to hit Cleric 8 in one quest). I recommend the Berserker 7/Cleric X. The Berserker's rage ability grants a ton of useful immunities. You get a +3 to hit and +5 to damage from Grand Mastery as well as a full attack per round. So with the level 7 bonus 1/2 attack you end up with 5 attacks every 2 rounds (7/2 dual wielding), compare that to the 1 APR you would have as a pure Cleric.

If you're coming from a Fighter perspective and want to get your feet wet with casters I would play a pure Cleric, or the Berserker 7/Cleric. You get that caster experience, but you still have a melee presence to fall back on if you need it or don't like playing a caster.

[ZirzoR]

Originally posted by wendigo211:

Without the Mystic Theurge, I'm not a fan of the Mage/Cleric hybrid because of how much it slows down your progression. It's not fun when you need level 9 spells and the best you have is level 7 because of the multiclass XP split. I suppose a Cleric dualed to a mage could be somewhat useful, you can use a shield, you get some extra hit points from the cleric side and a few useful buffs. Although I would rather play a pure mage or a pure cleric.

The point of Ranger/Cleric used to be that your Cleric got access to Druid spells. So you would take a Ranger to level 7 (1/2 attack per round) and then dual it to Cleric. On the melee side it's not as good as the Fighter/Cleric because Grand Mastery>>Specialization, but you would have a Cleric who could cast Iron Skins and Insect Plague. That bug has been patched out, so there is no point to making a Ranger/Cleric.

Stay away from the multiclassed Fighter/Cleric and Ranger/Cleric. Cleric THAC0 gets down to 5, so it really is all about the extra attacks if you combine it with Fighter or Ranger. You get an extra 1/2 attack per round at level 7 and another at level 13. So dualing at level 7 is much better than multiclassing (and in BG 2 you will get enough XP to hit Cleric 8 in one quest). I recommend the Berserker 7/Cleric X. The Berserker's rage ability grants a ton of useful immunities. You get a +3 to hit and +5 to damage from Grand Mastery as well as a full attack per round. So with the level 7 bonus 1/2 attack you end up with 5 attacks every 2 rounds (7/2 dual wielding), compare that to the 1 APR you would have as a pure Cleric.

If you're coming from a Fighter perspective and want to get your feet wet with casters I would play a pure Cleric, or the Berserker 7/Cleric. You get that caster experience, but you still have a melee presence to fall back on if you need it or don't like playing a caster.

Actually you never NEED level 9 spells, you can play the entire game without it, so I guess that point is sort of pointless to make, level 7+ spells are just gravy.

Playing a pure base class with no kit is just straightup awful compared to multiclassing so I dont know why you would suggest that.

I've soloed/Duod as a Fighter/cleric and it works just fine, dont try and belittle clerics with multiclassing, they have awesome buffs and are basicly the only ones to restore level drain and other nastyness.

How long have you been playing this game man? You really seem abit biased towards dual classing and whatnot, embrace the multiclass!

Multiclass is life!

Multiclass is love!

[fauxpas]

Meh, duel and multi both have their good points and both sound be used on different characters.

[ZirzoR]

Originally posted by fauxpas:

Meh, duel and multi both have their good points and both sound be used on different characters.

I never use dual class, so I would disagree, too much time wasted doing nothing, unless you use the learn scroll glitch, Which I think is fixed in EE, you dont get that much XP at all for it anymore atleast not in the first game.

[wendigo211]

Originally posted by ZirzoR:

Actually you never NEED level 9 spells, you can play the entire game without it, so I guess that point is sort of pointless to make, level 7+ spells are just gravy.

If you don't have an Inquisitor (or scrolls of Protection from Undead and/or Protection from Magic) you do need Ruby Ray of Reversal to deal with enemy casters who use Spell Trap. Besides there's so much fun to be had with Simulacrums, Time Stop, Improved Alacrity, Spell Triggers and Chain Contingencies. Those high level spells are all the fun of being a mage.

Playing a pure base class with no kit is just straightup awful compared to multiclassing so I dont know why you would suggest that.

Pure Cleric is a lot of fun. I didn't mention a kit because IIRC the game forces you to choose an ethos/kit as a Cleric. They do okay as offensive casters too with Harm, Blade Barrier and the holy line of spells.

I've soloed/Duod as a Fighter/cleric and it works just fine, dont try and belittle clerics with multiclassing, they have awesome buffs and are basicly the only ones to restore level drain and other nastyness.

That's it though, you've soloed and duoed, meaning you've been earning more XP to make up for the delayed progression of the multiclassed Fighter/Cleric. What if you were playing in a full party and didn't have that Chaotic Commands spell when you needed it because your level wasn't high enough?

However, IMO you would still be better off dual classed. The Berserker 7/Cleric will have the same number attacks as the Fighter/Cleric because while the Fighter/Cleric gets the extra 1/2 attack at level 13 that the Berserker/Cleric misses, the Berserker/Cleric gets an extra 1/2 attack from grand mastery that the Fighter/Cleric misses. He'll also have more HP and a higher Turn Undead level (If you're soloing you can destroy vampires, I don't think the game lets you destroy liches).

The pro for the Fighter/Cleric is that he will eventually get access to the Fighter HLAs, and Greater Whirlwind (for 10 APR) although the Berserker/Cleric can get up to 8 APR (Improved Haste, dual wielding and Bracers of Weapon Specialization). It's less of an issue with the other Fighter dual classes since I can give them one the weapons that grant an extra attack and get up to 10 APR without whirlwind.

How long have you been playing this game man? You really seem abit biased towards dual classing and whatnot, embrace the multiclass!

Multiclass is life!

Multiclass is love!

Since it was released, off and on, I've probably played through the whole series about 7 times with different characters. I like the multiclassed characters in BG, but hate them in BG 2. Once the XP per level is fixed and stops doubling every level, they just fall too far behind to be fun for me.

[House of Rahl]

in the past ranger/cleric gave access to ALL druid and cleric spells that u unlock. That’s no longer the case. currently the ranger/cleric is capped at lv3 for druid spells. that means no iron skins since thats a lv5 spell.

with respect, wendigo211 seems to have some good points but i strongly disagree with one. the falling behind thing isnt as big a deal in bg2 at least for caster classes since the spell level cap of 20 kicks in so fast, after that level all your doing is getting a few extra casts per day. from then on your spells will never "get stronger" by doing more damage or lasting longer.

there is a level cap for spells in bg, and that cap is lv 20. for example u can reach lv 31 as a straight mage, 31 as a druid, and an incredible 40 as a cleric. skull trap which is a strong aoe spell does 1d6 per level. it caps at lv 20 like all spells so 20d6, not 31d6. for a divine spell ill use regeneration; regeneration is suposta last 1 round every 2 levels of the caster. so a lv 40 cleric "should" be 20 rounds or 40/2=20. since its capped like all spells at lv 20 its actually 20/2=10. regeneration recovers 3hp per sec, or 18 per round. the difference between a lv 20 casting level and a lv 40 casting level is 180 hp recover over 1 minute, and 360 hp recovery over 2 minutes.

cleric/mages max level reaches: 25 cleric 20 mage, and a combined total of 55 cleric spells (not counting wis bonus spells), and 37 mage spells. with wisdom bonuses and gear to give additional spells u can prolly get up to around 100+ spells per resting period. even without any gear or wis bonus its 92 spells..... i mean talk about a spell casting powerhouse!

clerics for example stop gaining any spell slots past lv 37, and between lv 26 and 37 u gain a whole 4 spell slots for level 7 spells. 4 max level divine spells are good, but they aint worth the 37 mage spells u lose. for the record, lv 20 mage has 2 lv 9 spells. and lv 25 cleric has 3 lv 7 spell slots. u wont get the max spells till late in the game. BUT YOU CAN STILL GET THEM ~.~



two cons for cleric/mage, they need alot of micromanaging since they have SOOOO many spells. also if u wanta go melee u have to plan ahead of time and memorize spells like mirror image, stone skin, protect from magic weapons for defense, and spells like draw upon holy might, rightouse magic, tensers transformation, phantom blade, and black blade of disater.


just to touch on ranger/cleric in more detail. they cap at lv 25 cleric giving you a total of 55 divine spells. u will have access to druid and cleric spells up to lv3, but lv4-7 will be cleric only spells. ranger/cleric is really gimped right now. youd be better off getting a sub kit for a cleric and going straight to 40 than to go ranger/cleric. ranger/clerics and fighter/cleric multis both cap at 2* weapon proficiency, so the ranger/cleric has a slight advantage since they have access to lv1-3 druid spells.

a fighter dualed to a druid however is a much better choice if you want to have some of those wonderful nature spells. instead of being restricted to 2* proficiency like the multi classed fighter/druid or cleric/ranger, you actually can go full on 5* in any weapon proficiency. just be sure u dont become a grand master of 2 hand swords cause..... u cant freakin use it when u dual to a druid. the downside to dual class druids is they require some crazy stats. like 17 cha. dont quote me on this last part but "i think they also need 14 str and 15 wis" to dual to a druid on top of the 17 cha.


a fighter dualed to a druid or even a multiclass is a great option over a straight druid if u want some of the druid spells for your party. dual fighter/druids are capable of getting 5* in a weapon class, with access to full plate, shields, and best of all the spell iron skins! good game! a multi class fighter/druid is alot easier to roll but can only get 2* in any weapon instead of the 5* a dual class can get. dual class have to be babied though while transfering to a druid. untill u get back access to your fighter abilities your going to be pretty weak, you lose all your proficiency points, and access to the armor that u were likely wearing up to that point. dun worry though u get it all back when ur get ur druid level, 1 level higher then your fighter level.

best of luck with whichever you choose to run firestar!