I constantly read forums where new players are directed away from Fighter/Clerics, even when they're not even asking about Cleric/Rangers, simply because some wise guy chimes in and recommends Cleric/Ranger. Okay, so there's a glitch that allows C/Rs access to all druid spells. Even considering this, I am going to list the reasons why I believe that line of thinking is wrong in the hopes of steering any new players back onto the road of sanity.

With C/Rs, you don't get anymore spell slots! So having access to Druid spells is nice but in practice you're only going to be casting an x amount of spells, anyway. Basically it's all about Insect Swarms and Iron Skins. And yes, those are nice spells (one is a veritable mage destroyer and the other is a great defensive spell). But here's what you're giving up:

1. You have to be a puny, pathetic little half-elf runt instead of a Dwarf (Master Race).
2. You have slower leveling thanks to Ranger instead of Fighter.
3. You have worse saves (Dwarven F/Cs have the best saves in the game).
4. Dwarven F/Cs can acheive regeneration (20con) an hour into the first game.
5. Dwarven F/Cs w/ 20con can equip the Claw of Kazaroth (shorty bonuses stop at 18) and the +4 to poison/death still nets a -1 overall (Dwarves gain -5 to poison/death) while lowering all other saves to -3, bonus to AC and huge bonus against missiles!
6. The Half-Elf's extra point of Dex won't matter in the long run because there's no AC difference between 18 and 19 (which is what they will be after using the Dex tome), and it won't matter in the next game either (no AC difference between 19-20). It only counts towards ranged - which neither class can use bows and won't be using ranged anyway. So bye bye dex advantage (but con advantage is ALWAYS relevant).
7. The F/C will end up with an extra HLA.
8. The F/C has a better stronghold (opinion).
9. ONLY THE DWARF can use the Dwarven Thrower (BG2), which, by the way, grants a +8 against giants/ogres, making up for the lack of a favored enemy.
10. You have to be a goodie goodie to be a C/R. F/Cs can be any alignment.

And the extra two pips in two-weapon fighting don't matter either, 'cause neither the F/C or C/R can use Belm. So sword n board is better.

All said, this is my case as to why the Dwarven Fighter/Cleric multi is better than the Cleric/Ranger multi. I do not believe druid spells make up for all the other deficiencies.

(Assuming non-EE)

Cleric/Rangers have another advantage of Fighter/Clerics: They start gaining HLAs earlier, at about 2.25 million XP, instead of having to reach 3 million like everyone else.

Also, there is a third option that gets 7th level druid spells before Druids do: The Ranger->Cleric dual class.

As for some of your points:

Point 7: one extra HLA at a level when you already have a lot of HLAs is not significant. The HLAs that the Ranger/Cleric gets early are more meaningful than the extra one that the Fighter/Cleric ends up with in the end.

Point 10: Alignment doesn't have that much mechanical impact; the only differences that I can think of that really matter involve Smite Evil (a great offensive spell that won't hurt good characters but will hurt evil ones, making it safe to use in a party with no evil characters, and which you don't get if you are evil (unless you're Viconia or your alignment somehow changes) and turn undead (admittedly the evil version is better, but how often do you get a chance to use that ability anywsy? This isn't Icewind Dale). Also, at the end of Shadows of Amn, I believe you can become Neutral Evil without falling by taking the evil solution to one of the puzzles; this will give you the ability to command undead while not taking away your Smite Evil spell (because the game doesn't just take away your spells once you learn them).

Exsqueeze me?!!!!!

You're out of touch. No line of thinking is wrong. Or do you believe that it's your way or no way? Pfft!

If your conviction of what you wrote is true, then that's bullshit.

Your original post isn't actually comparing F/C and R/C but rather your preference for dwarves.

How you build your characters is your choice and choice is the key word here. In BG, there are tons of PC combinations and there is no "best" one depending on what you want from your gaming experience.

To me, the best characters are ones you have fun playing. If you feel playing a dwarven F/C is more satisfying than a half elf R/C, more power to you. But to say others are wrong because of your preference for dwarven F/Cs over R/Cs is kinda silly.

Oh, and my half-orc granny berserker with 5 pips in her frying pan proficiency and "Granny's nagging" HLA enabled can kick your dwarven F/C's arse...................so there..........

Good points, Darkul. I confirm that the Druid spells are not mandatory for the enjoyment of the class; supposedly they weren't intended to be present for Cleric/Ranger beyond spell level 3, and my current play though is going very smoothly without using them. Also, if Jaheira is in the party you have the Druid spells right there (Creeping Doom!). I currently use level 5 spell slots for Righteous Magic and none for Iron Skins (this isn't my first play through, though...).

To your points I will add for thought:

11. 2 pips in two weapon style: a weapon in the off-hand is often useful and beneficial (an early example: Defender of Easthaven +3). Cleric/Ranger can have 3 pips in two weapon style from the starting blocks in BG2.

12. Rangers can use Stealth / Hide in Shadows. Useful for scouting and for getting a +4 THAC0 bonus on the 1st hit. Very good skill right from the starting blocks in BG2, and not bad in BG1 either.

13. Racial ability: can select Mind Flayer in BG2, which could be a true life saver as they drain Intelligence. (Ogre is good for BG1, I think). Especially if playing with Sword Coast Stratagems installed.

14. Role playing considerations can be high on some folk's lists. Who are you? More of "A" vs "B"? Etc, etc...

I'm just trying to be nice. No one likes an arrogant ass. Do I feel that I'm correct? Yes.

But others feel that way about their views, too.

Now more to the point, I just feel that the Dwarf>Half-Elf racial advantage outweighs the Cleric/Ranger>Fighter/Cleric class advantage, and quite easily, too.

Now do you have anything constructive to add on the subject at hand, you snarky little English twat*? Or are you just the attitude police?

*yes, you're English. Scots and Welchman don't nearly as often act like punk brats.

And yet...
"You have to be a puny, pathetic little half-elf runt instead of a Dwarf (Master Race)."

Call it tongue-in-cheek if you dare, but the meaning is there. Hahaha! Nice. Real nice.

Hey, if I get accused of bigotry I might as well get something out of it. Cheerio!

If it's got four legs and a hump, odds are it's a camel.

The OP really contradicts itself. Get 20 Con, but then gimp regen with the Claw?
Neither class will be using ranged, but then mention Dwarven Thrower as a benefit?

From relativism to hypocrisy, always an easy transfer.

If I were to do a fighin' priest....

If I picture the character as a dwarf or gnome, I'd do F/C.

If I picture the character as a half-elf, I'd do C/R.

I think the BG games are balanced pretty well. I can do almost the whole thing without dying/reloading (almost). And that's without exploiting the engine game cheese. In fact, I play using self-imposed restrictions (to further enhance the escapism entertainment), such as no buffing before fights that I know are right around the corner (unless it'd be obvious to my party), and only resting once a day (in the evening, more or less). ...And still the game seems pretty well balanced.

So while I'd agree with both sides' pro/con list, I think the min/maxing is not needed at all, and should take a backseat to how you envision the character. Seems more fun to me.

But I do love reading any related friendly debates, for this great D&D simulator game that so many of us love, so many years after its day in the sun has come and gone.