Dwarf F/C vs. Half-Elf C/R

Remove all ads!

I'm trying to decide which is better from a powergaming point of view:

The Dwarf Fighter/Cleric gets:

Better saving throws
More Hit Points
-1 AC
Slightly faster level-ups

The Half-Elf Cleric/Ranger gets:

Charm animal ability
Stealth
Racial Enemy
Limited access to Druid spell

Any input is welcome. I'm looking for a character that can step up and be a tank if needed, but who will primarily be a spellcaster. The rest of my party looks like this: Pal, F/D, F/Ill, F/M/T, Bard.

TIA

 

I haven't notice my R/C failing very many saving throws.
The F/C will only have 4½ hit points more than the R/C.
-1 AC? Lower dex means +1 AC.
I haven't used charm animal yet in the games.
Stealth only works with light armor (not good for a tank).
+4 to hit is always good.
The ranger/cleric will gain access to all druid spells (but you already have a druid).

With the above, I think it's a wash. However, the ranger/cleric will also get one additional attack per round when using a one-handed weapon and no shield. This was the IWD variation of dual welding. This adds versatility to the character as they can use a shield against some opponents and hit more often versus others. Advantage R/C.

Is your F/D a dual or multi? The first time I played, mine was dual -- very good character. Looking at your party, you could even consider a straight fighter instead of another divine caster. A dwarven fighter with 19 con and *****'s in a weapon (like axe) is a real powergaming character -- hit's hard and often. Add in a throwing axe and you've got a tank that does a tremendous amount of damage at a distance and up close.

 

The manual says that the ranger only gets this benefit when he wields a sword. Is this also true for the blunt weapons that a R/C is limited to?

 

It should work with any one handed weapon and no shield. I lose an attack when my R/C has a shield versus just welding a mace.

I have heard there may be a requirement for another one-handed weapon to be in a weapon slot -- but the attack is with the weapon in hand and so I do not believe a second weapon is required.

Oh yes, to clarify something ... the R/C does not gain druid spells until achieving 6th level in Ranger (at least with HoW installed). Once the ranger side can cast spell (at 6th level with HoW), the game engine opens all druid spells to the character up to the level of spells allowed by the cleric level obtained.

 

Can you see this extra attack in the character sheet, or are you inferring this in the combat messages? I'll try it out tonight

 

Rangers get the extra APR with any melee weapon (even 2-handed swords) if they don't wear a shield (I tested it.).

For powergaming in HOF mode the R/C is far superior because of some powerful druid spells, not because of the extra attack.
Later you might even prefer to wear a shield with the R/C, for the role of the party healer it's far more important to survive to be able to raise the dead party members than to increase the party damage output by a few percent.

 

True, but he already has a F/D. If only one divine spell caster was taken, then definately the R/C has the advantage. But if, as in this case, a F/D will be taken, how much do you really gain by having more druid spells available? The decision between F/C and R/C would be decided by other criteria.

Works with 2-handed weapons? Alas, Staff of the Ram is not in IWD.

 

Druids are no buffers, they mainly have offensive spells.
2 entangles or 2 lightnings are more efficient than one.

 

From a powergaming point of view I think the R/C is better than the F/C. The additional druid spells and spells per level seem more powerful. Plus the R/C can sneak and is an excellant scout.

That allows your thief to concentrate on other skills such as open locks and find traps, especially with a Bard to do the pickpocketing.

One bad thing is that a R/C can't use bladed/pointed weapons, so he can't damage enemies immune to blunt weapons...

 

Except that there are no enemies immune to blunt weapons. And there are several blunt weapons truly wonderful in the game.
I agree that if you have a fighter/druid in the game a ranger/cleric is a bit too much. A dwarven fighter/cleric could be a better choice. Or if you want you can take a human fighter up to level 9 and then dual class him/her to a cleric. You shouldn't worry about healing since you already have a fighter/druid in the team.
Another choice could be using an gnome Cleric/Illusionist and replace the fighter/Illusionist with something else, like a ranger or a dwarf fighter.

 

As well as the scouting advantage of a Ranger, I have found having some extra entangles being a real life saver.

 

He's using a fighter/druid from the start. No need for a ranger to get entangle. But in my parties rangers are almost always a character to be taken. There are some good 2-handed swords and spears in the game and it would be a real waste not to use them.

 

Somtimes my fighter druid runs out of entangles, and an extra one from th ranger cleric comes in VERY handy.

 

I hate to revive this thread, but I thought a Dwarf could get 19 con, giving him an extra HP/level. How do you figure only 4.5 hit points? He'd only get one HP at level one, but by level 6 he'd have 6 more HP than then half-elf. By level 12, he'd have 12 more HP.

 

First of all the advantages of constitution stop at level nine. Second, the hit points for a multiclassed character are calculated by determining the amount of hit points gained for a specific level and dividing that by the number of classes. However, you are correct for a single classed dwarven fighter -- but we were talking about a fighter/cleric.

When a dwarven fighter/cleric with a 19 con gains a cleric level, only a max of 5 hit points will be gained (8 for class + 2 for con divided by 2) -- which is the exact same for the half-elf ranger/cleric with an 18 con. When a fighter level is gained, only a max of 7.5 hit points are gained for the dwarf -- (10+5)/2. For the ranger, only a max of 7 points are gained -- (10+4)/2.

The fighter/cleric (with 19 con) will only get one-half point more per level than the ranger/cleric (with 18 con). Only nine levels = 4.5 hit points more on average.

 

That's wrong. In the IE games multiclass warriors get the warrior con bonus for the other classes too, so the difference between 18 and 19 con are 9 hitpoints at level 9.
There's also a slight HP advantage for the F/C compared to the R/C since fighters level a little faster.

 

kmonster: Not in my experience. My multiclassed characters have always followed the 2nd Ed rules when it comes to hit points.

 

AFAIK the 2e HP rules are that the roll is divided by the number of classes (rounding down) and then half of the CON bonus is added in. If the CON bonus is uneven, add the extra point in the warrior level.

 

I'm quite sure about what I wrote. It's very easy to test, just create a level 1 fighter/cleric with 18 con. He'll have 13 hitpoints.

 

The cleric level only gives you 2 bonus HP. So a 16 con would be enough to max out possible hp for the cleric class. You get some extra ones for the fighter levels though.