Cleric/Ranger and Druid Spells

Remove all ads!

Why does everybody think a Cleric/Ranger is that good? OK, I know this one. It's because they can cast both cleric and druid spells. But is this really that great? What are good druid spells?

And I was also wondering, what is the cleric/ranger everybody is talking about? Is it the multiclass or a dual class (in which case I was wondering what the best level for dualclassing would be)?

 

Good spells - Summon Insects/Insect Plague (great for interupting ememy mage's spells), Iron Skin (priest's equivalent to stoneskin), Nature's Beauty, vaious summoning spells (if that's your thing).

Multi vs dual class - dual if SoA, multi if ToB. Reasons are here (same link as in your other thread). If you care, I started a topic awhile back on when to dual here, but it relates more to SoA.

 

I would have made him a multi if I hadn't posted this, but I think I heard someone saying that the ranger's level doesn't matter and stuff, so I thought: dualclass. And since I also thought everybody was talking about the same class, I wanted to know what it was.

Anyway, I'm still not really convinced about the power of druid spells. Maybe some hardcore cleric/ranger-fans can convince me of the power of this class?

 

Why it's so good ? It's a cleric with some spells more. Some very handy spells more. There's a difference between a druid and a cleric. The Ranger/Cleric negates this difference spell-wise. The advantage of this should be obvious, by comparing the spells of the druid and the cleric and their abilities and restrictions in the manual.

And the most obvious is ironskin. A cleric has a lot of protection anyway, but the ranger/cleric gets ironskin added.

 

@Yago:
I can see a Ranger/Cleric is better than a regular cleric, because he has more spells (although he can actually cast a lot less level 7 ones).

But there are also other pretty powerful classes such as the berserker/cleric. Why is it more powerful than that? I bet the B/C is much stronger in combat. Are those few druid spells worth sacrificing melee power?

And also, I was wondering what you guys think:
Dual vs Multi (in this case)
Dualclass has more hitpoints, better thac0...
Dualclass has 4 more level 7 spells more and 1 level 6
Multiclass has a lot more HLA's and can chose from the ranger pool.

What do you think is more powerful?

 

Compare the ranger/cleric to the other possibilities of similar playing characters and you see why she does so well.

Consider that you can reach level 21 as a ranger. That means you'll have a base Thac0 of 0 -- the same as a level 40 fighter. So, the ranger/cleric has the advantage over the straight cleric or druid of having more hps, and better Thac0. Her disadvantage relative to a straight class is she is able to memorize fewer spells as she can only reach level 25 as a cleric which means she can cast 9 level 1-6 spells (just like a straight class cleric) 7 level 6 spells (vs 8 for a straight class cleric) and 3 level 7 spells (vs. 7 for a straight class cleric at level 40 though offsetting this is that a cleric essentially wastes over a million experience points by not improving after 39).

In exchange for essentially being able to cast 4 fewer spells though the ranger/cleric has access to a wider variety of spells thanks to the druid spells. Good spells include: call lightning, summon insects, insect plague, iron skins, pixie dust, the various summoning spells, creeping doom, and nature's beauty. These are all great spells.

The ranger/cleric beats the beserker/cleric and is a better warrior because of the above spells. Primarily, your berserker>cleric does not have access to iron skins. Think of it this way: that is ~12 automatically stopped melee hits per iron skins casting and it casts instantaneously so that if it goes down in combat you can recast immediately. Remember, they have identical Thac0's at high level. So, your benefits from rage are wasted (extra str for extra damage means nothing if you can't scratch him). The hps are a slight difference since the primary benefit comes in level 1-9 anyways. Add in that nature's beauty automatically blinds enemies and does not wear off without a counter spell and the Thac0 actually swings in favor of the r/c.

Plus, the multiclass ranger/cleric has the tremendous advantage of gaining HLA's from both classes -- and plenty of em. The berserker>cleric however is not a valid multiclass so you in all likelihood will never have hardiness, greater whirlwinds etc. If you do take a fighter high enough to get some HLA's you can only get a couple before you have to dual in order to make it up to a higher level of cleric and then you have to spend a large part of the game without being a berserker at all.

In terms of power - multi beats dual in tob hands down for ranger/cleric or fighter/clerics.

IMO, the one interesting type of character that compares favorably to r/c is a fighter/druid. The interesting thing about this class is that a druid advances in spell casting differently than a cleric multi so that you'll get 6 level 7 spells opposed to 3. You will lose out on the ability to cast cleric spells and this includes some awesome spells. However, you do gain immunity to poison and more importantly elemental resistances. You have the same Thac0 as the ranger/cleric. The interesting thing to me is that you have access to different weapons. A r/c power dream is flail of ages in one hand and crom in the other while a fighter/druid may choose to use spectral brand or, my choice, Ixil's Spike.

I like the spear class weapons and think they're underappreciated so I like the fighter/druid idea and think it is the only class of this sort that can approach the r/c but still think in terms of power the r/c has it beat.

 

Well, Laches already showed in detail all pro's and con's of the ranger-cleric-mix and why it's so superior, I just want to add, that even if I play a ranger/cleric mic, I am concvinced that it should be forbidden because of game balance. Druid-Spells and Cleric-Spells and Cleric-abilities are too good if mixed.

The other mix-variant, Paladin/Druid is not possible. But if it would be possible, the Paladin/Druid-mix would be an other class-mix which would be heard of often. Because the Paladin would open-up the cleric-spells for the Druid.

And to the other question, it depends. What do you want ? A Cleric which leans more on melee or a cleric which leans more on spell-casting and get's a bunch of powerfull spells added ? Do you solo or do plan to do it with a small group or a big group ? What kind of group ? Do plan to do SoA and ToB or only SoA or only ToB ?

I dualed. I needed a healer on my way through SoA.

 

The problem with dual-classing is that your thac0 doesn't improve the way you would expect it. This is not 3E: you're not getting attack bonus increase on level-up, you get your thac0 adjusted. For a priest, base thac0 drops until it hits 8. It matters not what was your thac0 when you took the first level in priest class so long as it wasn't lower than that (8). For example Anomen who was a 7th level fighter before he became a cleric, still has 7 base thac0 in ToB (IIRC strength contributes to base thac0, not effective thac0). With all his spells and a +3 weapon he can get down to -5, which means that in his case spell buffs make a nice total of -7 or -8 (he has a girdle). But a multiclassed ranger will ultimately have his class base thac0 at 0. Add his strength, probably with a girdle, and you have a further -2 for high 18/xx's and about the same amount from a girdle of strength and the holy symbol (20 STR together). Cleric spells won't be as high-level as Anomen's, so you won't benefit from them as much as he does, but your physical stats will still increase significantly. As was said in posts above, you will get ranger's pool of HLA's. Nothing special if compared to paladin's one, but you can get summon deva and alike from cleric levels (unless all of them HLAs appear on every level-up, regardless of which class gets the level, I don't remember).

 

I don't really know what I want more, I guess I would want a good melee guy, but I also don't want to miss out on any cool spells... damn, this is hard.
I play through SoA and ToB.
And I play it with a big group (sorcerer, kensai, wizardslayer/thief, archer, another character I'm not yet sure about).
I was actually thinking of making that last character a fighter/druid. If I did this, would a ranger/cleric still be nice? I mean, then I have the druid spells anyway...

 

Fighter/druid is not necessarily more effective than ranger/cleric. You don't get cleric spells like draw upon holy might, righteous magic etc, and the legendary gap between levels 14 and 15 means having to double your experience points before advancing as a druid. When you get to level 15, then that's a different story (but youe still have a lower casting level). In return you get your warrior component levels faster, as ranger levels are cheaper (note that you need to get double the normal XP since you have two classes). However, before that huge level gap druid advances much faster than cleric (level 11 cleric needs 675K XP, level 11 druid needs 200K), so your casting abilities will come quickly enough for a multiclassed character. You will also get stoneskin after accumulating only 35K XP in druid class instead of 55XP in cleric class.

So, it's really up to you. It depends on what you value more, no option is significantly more powerful that the other.

 

Well, with a big party, I would dual. But I have the iron-rule: Never without a cleric (heal is so comfortable). And a ranger dualed to cleric is just a better cleric.