POLL: Fighter/Cleric: Multi- or Dual- Classed?

Remove all ads!

I'm actually looking at this poll in a purely power-viewpoint only. So, which is more powerful (all the way through ToB):

1) a multi-classed Dwarven Fighter/Cleric

or

2) a dual-classed Human Berserker/Cleric?

Both have pros and cons. Option 1 has no "catch-up" time between classes, will gain HLAs from both pools, and will have the racial advantages of being a dwarf (better saving throws, more hit points). Option 2 gains the ability to rage, which provides many immunities and bonuses, and will eventually be a better spellcaster. He'll also be able to achieve ***** in any weapon, not just **.

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 25 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Fighter/Cleric: Multi- or Dual- Classed? (25 votes.)

Fighter/Cleric: Multi- or Dual- Classed? (Choose 1)
* Multi-classed Dwarven Fighter/Cleric - 68% (17)
* Dual-classed Human Berserker/Cleric - 32% (8)

 

Multi, because dual is just too damn tedious.

 

Dual-class. You get a very powerful cleric who can fight when required. The xp spent on the early fighter levels are negligible and you realisitically become a single-class cleric.

 

A reason as good as any.

This was covered a couple of weeks ago in some topics created by Aldeth I believe.

 

I say Multi...if you are going to take him all the way through Throne of Bhaal (this IS the ToB form), and to HLAs, then Greater Whirlwinds, Greater Deathblows along with all your nifty high level cleric spells are preferable to just getting spells, if a little earlier, while having to miss out on those HLAs.

 

Multi-class, since we're talking about power.
In any case, the Dual-class is the more useful one. I want a cleric who can fight, not a fighter who can cast cleric spells.

 

IMO, multi is ok, but with dual-classing the fighter class can go as far as five proficiency points in a wepon, and with some fighter kit abilities, is worth going one level higher than the fighter class to use again eg... berserking, magic resistance, kai strike, etc....

 

I have to say multi. Yes, acheiving grand mastery in weapons is very good. Yes, the berserk ability is fantastic. But if you're talking power, then I'm talking HLAs, and a dual class berserker cleric only gets cleric HLAs. Plus, I feel a high level cleric is (EDIT *not* END EDIT) that much better than a mid level one.

For example, I would rather have a MC fighter20/cleric22, than a DC Berserker9/cleric30.

[ August 13, 2004, 15:27: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Sorry Aldeth, you've lost me on this one. You say the high level cleric is better, but you go for the L22 cleric instead of the L30 cleric.

 

Methinks Aldeth made a bo-bo.

I don't think there's a notable difference in the clerical part between the mc Fig-20/Cle-22 and the dc Ber-9/Cle-30.
The reasons being the spell cap at level 20 and that they both have all the clerical HLA's.

 

Yeah, I screwed up. I meant to say I do NOT think a high level cleric is that much better than a mid-level one.

 

What makes the high-level cleric so much better is the number of higher level spells that can be cast.

Example:
6mil xp = F20/C21 or B9/C33 (F20/C22 = B9/C34)

Number of spells that can be cast by the cleric is ...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-----------------------
Level 21 9 9 9 9 8 6 2
Level 33 9 9 9 9 9 8 5

... as you can see there is +1 L5, +2 L6 and +3 L7. While this may not seem like much, the power of these higher level spells is awesome. That could be an extra 3 Devas, which I am sure would pretty well make up for the drop in fighting power.

and you would be casting the high level spells much sooner. L7 spells = L14 cleric (1350000xp), so the F/C would need 2700000xp and the B/C would only need 1600000xp. This is quite a sizeable chunk.

Plus, the berserker rage would give some handy immunities while the cleric is casting spells to protect him further.

I would envisage a cleric casting spells and only attacking if pushed into it. If the clerics primary role is to melee, then perhaps he should be a Paladin of Fighter instead.

The only race worthy of being a F/C is a dirty smelly Dwarf. Yuk!!

This whole debate has got me thinking now. I was playing with Tactics/Ascension and trying out a Priest of Talos and I'm not sure now whether to move over to a B/C instead.

 

DC Berserker/Cleric gets a holy symbol much earlier than MC for another 6th and 7th level spell.

 

How did I get suckered into comparing a dc Ber/Cle with only nine fighter levels with a mc F/C?

If you want to boost your cleric some, by all means dc him with nine levels of berserker first and he'll certainly be a better character than a single class cleric.

The mc F/C can cast the highest level spells, casting more of the same is IMO not all that important.

That's not a reasonable comparison. I'm not talking about a cleric, but about a cleric who is also a fighter.
The mc F/C can cast all the spells a single class cleric can and he is also a great fighter.
A fighter has no spells and a paladin is limited to 4th level spells, clearly not comparable with a F/C.

 

@Drumheller: you are right, except the MC F/C will never realistically gain a holy symbol (7.6mil xp required)

@Earl:

Surely that's the whole point isn't it. The L7 and Quest spells of the cleric are great so casting more makes your job much easier. Against big bosses, being able to use summons is crucial and the longer you can keep Devas around is surely beneficial.

But, the more you use the fighter HLAs and pile into combat you are using the Cleric abilitied less and less. So you are becoming more of a fighter than a cleric.

All this said, both are very valid. It just shows our different styles and reasons for using certain classes. I like to use a cleric for spellcasting first and foremost, and be able to fight if needed. I never use F/C or F/D in the front like they should be and nearly always keep them as spellcasters - so I have moved over to using dual or single classed instead.

The other reason I am so against them is that I can only envisage Dwarves as F/C (Yeslick was cool in BG1) and as there is no NPC I would have to be one myself and I HATE being short fat and ugly (which is why I play these games so I can pretend I'm not).

Now, if you're talking about Cleric/Mages then that's a different story. I am a huge fan of this great multi-class.

 

Well...a multiclassed Fighter/Cleric would be the same as Ranger/Cleric, only, with the added caveat of druid spells as well as cleric spells.

Also, if the character MUST be a Fighter/Cleric, one which casts Champion's Strength (Kai on steroids!) then Draw Upon Holy Might (Strength, Dexterity AND Constitution at 25 at high levels? YES PLEASE!), Protection from Evil (optionally, for the saves), and tons of other buffs which R/C's have access to ASSURE this character of being a God at destruction.

A dual-classed cleric however, will be a mini-God, considering he has MUCH lesser attacks. Just one or two, at most.

THAT is the single most crippling disadvantage which forces the dual-classed cleric to be a moderately powerful character instead of the God he could have been.

 

How many attacks can a F/C have? The big difference will be Greater Whirlwind.

A B/C could have ***** in his main weapon giving extra attack(s) and bonuses. He would get the same benefits of Draw Upon Holy Might as the F/C (but earlier), plus he would gain the benefits of the Beserker ability. A cleric's THAC0 isn't that far behind the fighter, and with STR25 it will still be way in the -ve.

I don't think there is so much in it. Besides, I will just keep casting Devas to weaken the enemies and then start fighting.

As to a Cleric/Ranger, this assumes you are playing a half-elf as only these can be m/c Cleric/Rangers. C/R are great characters (I have played one on many occasions and love them)and are sort of like F/C/D, as they can also cast all the fantastic Druid spells. This is one class that it is worth losing a quantity of priest spells for. The trouble is, there would be too many good spells to choose from.

 

These comparisons should take into consideration the difficulty level - Core, Hard, Insane and mods - Tactics ?

My two cents:

If Core - then DC is powerful enough and more usable from the beginning

If Hard or Insane with Tactics - then MC
Why ? The damage from opponents is so high that you bloody need Hardiness. Combine that with Armor of Faith and Defender of Easthaven and you have 85% physical resistance.

Critical Strike, GWW and also Greater Deathblow will be put to great use in these battles.

 

@Bard: In my experience, a Fighter/Cleric will be able to get 4-5 attacks with specialisation and dual-weilding, and of course, leveling up enough.

A dual-classed Berserker/Cleric with dual-weild and Grandmastery, would only ever have 2.5-3 attacks. AT the most.

Keeping this in mind, those potential 2 extra attacks tip it in the favour of the multiclass, gameplay wise.

This is not even figuring HLAs into the mix.

GWW(!!), GDB, Critical Strike (!!), Smite in addition to everything a dual-class would get.

In my mind, there can be no comparison.

However, in all fairness, I must say that for the purposes of SoA,a Berserker/Cleric would be preferable, due to the better spell-casting making up for his lack of attacks. And the multi-class would have the same number of attacks in SoA, as he would not have leveled up enough.

Its pretty clear to me, dual class for SoA, multi for ToB.

 

How about a mulit class with a good armour class casting armor of faith on themselves for times for a cumulative 100% resistance to physical damage and then wading in with a greater whirlwind perhaps enhanced by another spell like chant/draw upon holy might/holy power