It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like:Chrome,Firefox,Internet Explorer orOpera

×
I'm replaying the game for the 6th or 7th time, but I can't decide on my class choice.
Either a Fighter/Cleric (Dualclass) or a Ranger/Cleric multiclass. I'm not really convinced that the increased XP requirement of the Ranger outweight the availability of Druid spells. However, I like the Ranger stronghold better.
The Fighter/Cleric would require less XP and have five stars in a weapon of his choice. (I'm using mods to restore BG1 weapon mastery.)
Another option would be a Bard (Blade), but I have the feeling that his combat abilities would be lacking.
My all-time favourite would be a Fighter/Mage, but I've played so many of these that I really want to try something else.
As I'm writing this, I'm also considering a Paladin (Inquisitor). On the one hand, his Dispel is extremely powerful. On the other hand, I'm afraid I might get bored with the lack of spells. Then again, Paladin spells aren't all that great by the time they get them, right?

Thanks in advance for any advice!
I...guess it somewhat depends on what you want to get out of the game. Of the options you mentioned I've only played the F/C dual class, so someone else may be able to give you more specific information. The answers will depend on your goals, though. If your main goal is to roleplay it, then all I can advise is go for whichever character you most like the concept of (the only single class which really has balance issues in BG2 is druid, and none of the combinations you mentioned have major issues either). Then you'll probably have the most enjoyable experience, and if your character is a bit weaker than he might have been, so what? That makes him a more interesting person. The NPCs are at about that level, too, so you won't end up being dead weight in the party. It sounds like from RP you're leaning more towards ranger.

If you want to choose the most powerful character you can, then I can say that F/C is a solid choice of dual class which is very nice to play. (though obviously you should choose your moment to switch classes well: I did it at level 7, after you get an extra half attack per round). It's probably mechanically better than a R/C multiclass, due to the xp issues you mentioned. Paladin is a class I've only played in low level BG1, but he was OK there. In general, paladins (in 2e!) are considered a strong class if rather MAD (multiple attribute dependent), so you may have trouble getting good stats for him. Inquisitor is generally agreed to be one of the better kits: paladin spells, by all accounts, aren't very impressive or useful anyway, and the class's other abilities are the ones which are most significant. Of course, paladins also get a certain very nice item later on. Since you've played several times, I'll assume you know what I'm talking about...
Post edited March 29, 2014 by pi4t
I don't buy into the "He's weaker therefor more interesting RP-wise" credo. :) I don't see a necessary corelation between the two, that's all.

As I said, the only thing stopping me from going F/C is the fact that the Ranger stronghold is cooler IMO. Of course, I could use the tweak mod to be able to get any Stronghold...
avatar
GawainBS: I don't buy into the "He's weaker therefor more interesting RP-wise" credo. :) I don't see a necessary corelation between the two, that's all.

As I said, the only thing stopping me from going F/C is the fact that the Ranger stronghold is cooler IMO. Of course, I could use the tweak mod to be able to get any Stronghold...
No, but nor is there the reverse correlation: it doesn't follow that "he's stronger therefore more interesting". As I said, if you're interested most in RP, then...go with whichever concept most appeals to you. If you do want the most powerful character you can, then F/C is probably better than R/C, though.
If you are truly more interested in R/P than anything else, then you wouldn't be asking complete strangers on which character to pick. Why do that anyway? Just go with your instincts, or make up an over-story and choose a character that fits. Stats are secondary, unless you are power gaming. Bottom line: why play the game with somebody else's suggested character? It doesn't make sense.
It sounds like you want to get creative with your class choice. If you've played through that many times, play something that will offer a different experience. Different strategy, different stronghold, different weapons/equipment, different party composition ... something different than the last half dozen times you've played. Try a different alignment even.

IMO, Fighter/Clerics are the quintessential power build but I am personally partial to Paladins. The Inquisitor seems to be a particular favorite but my Paladin of choice is the Cavalier. IMO, the Inquisitor's restrictions outweigh any benefits. And yes, Paladin spells are *extremely* handy, particularly in the end game. So what if Cavalier's can't range? Paladins are front line fighters anyway!

To me, the Ranger's spell contributions to a Ranger/Cleric class are too nominal to justify the greater experience overhead, but the RNG/CLR is a serious power build. Dual Classing Fighter classes is often preferable to multiclassing if you don't mind playing Human. It only takes a few levels of fighter until you can progress in a second class and make the best of it.

In any case, I would recommend just choosing something different. A different play style that might offer a different narrative path or NPC interactions.
avatar
GawainBS: I'm replaying the game for the 6th or 7th time, but I can't decide on my class choice.
Either a Fighter/Cleric (Dualclass) or a Ranger/Cleric multiclass. I'm not really convinced that the increased XP requirement of the Ranger outweight the availability of Druid spells. However, I like the Ranger stronghold better.
The Fighter/Cleric would require less XP and have five stars in a weapon of his choice. (I'm using mods to restore BG1 weapon mastery.)
Another option would be a Bard (Blade), but I have the feeling that his combat abilities would be lacking.
My all-time favourite would be a Fighter/Mage, but I've played so many of these that I really want to try something else.
As I'm writing this, I'm also considering a Paladin (Inquisitor). On the one hand, his Dispel is extremely powerful. On the other hand, I'm afraid I might get bored with the lack of spells. Then again, Paladin spells aren't all that great by the time they get them, right?

Thanks in advance for any advice!
From a RP perspective, a Paladin or Good aligned Cleric (single or multi-class) provides a theme of rejecting your heritage if you plan on going that way; Paladins are pretty much built for killing, but the key difference between them and Bhaal is that they don't do it gratuitously as Bhaal or his spawn, and a Cleric would be even more diametrically opposed to their heritage since AD&D clerics generally don't kill a lot in battle (hell, their spells are mostly non-damaging in nature and they are restricted from using weapons that draw blood). If you're playing it as someone embracing their heritage, I got nothing.
I always found the notion of AD&D's Cleric Ethos of not using weapons that draw blood laughable: a mace to the head tends to draw plenty of blood. And brains.
Anyway, I'm leaning more and more towards Paladin. Thanks for the suggestions.
The whole cleric/mace thing comes historically from the Archbishop Turpin character in Song of Roland.

Also, if you're looking to play something different, try a Bard-barian.
Post edited April 02, 2014 by Dreamteam67
avatar
Dreamteam67: Also, if you're looking to play something different, try a Bard-barian.
That was so bad it warrants pun-ishment :)