Clerics just as powerful as mages

[toriuxik]

What do you think of my new signature (now that its actually up and running.... lol THANX MEMNOCH *is still kissing pointy shoes*)? I suppose its a little bit of a traitorous act, but who DOESN'T love the Black Mage? Erm... anyway...

Gnome Illusionist/Cleric was the first character I finished BG1 with. I loved magic missile and cure light wounds, but HATED all the NPC mages, and liked only 1 NPC cleric (yeslisk or something, dwarven Fighter/cleric). lol I rounded out my party with pure muscle characters (tanking with Super Khalid (I killed Jahera and dropped her, and then you get to keep Khalid... I like him more. [img]smile.gif[/img] )... I think his AC was around -14 or something ridiculous like that.

I agree that things really can't be compared for 2 character classes in this fashion. Of course, I actually DID run around with at LEAST 1 deathward at all times as a precaution for the PC... If a boss fight was up, protection was ready. Saved his life many times....

It simply doesn't make sense to do this... since its like a case of 'my daddy can take yer daddy!' followed by a scathing 'nu-uh! MY daddy can take YOUR daddy!'... and so forth.

[Lord Ludtke]

First off, love the sig. I believe that is from FF tactics. Was that on the SNES or PS1? Anyway, I digress...

Some of the blatant crap thrown around this post was incredible. Invis lasts until you attack. Skely warriors last 8 hours, and are highly resistant to magic. The cleric is not going to outlast 8 hours.

Cleric wears great armour and great weapons. So what? Your weapon is only going to take out a mirror, and your armour is not going to save you from the funk that is coming. If clerics had access to some sort of dispelling weapon alla Carsomr, then it might be different.

I am from the old school of pnp thought, always have a cleric in the group for res and heal and decent attacks. But in a one on one, it is no contest.

[toriuxik]

Actually, its a black mage from final fantasy 1... lol Check out the 8-bit theatre. thats where I stole it from... www.nuklearpower.com

Anyway...

I was suggesting that the cleric is not fighting the summoned creatures. He is running the hell away from them. Then, he just needs to wait for the mage to mess up and become visible (spell or attack)... at which point the other copies of the scroll come into play.

[Yggdrasil]

Hi guys...been awhile.

I have now soloed with a Cleric (half-orc Priest of Helm) and an elven Sorcerer...and a Swashbuckler, but that's off-topic. I also have a full party game with myself as a dualled fighter-druid, and also have a game in beginning stages with a shapeshifter. Here's what I've figured out.

Pitting a cleric against a mage is silly. They are complementary spell-casters; mages are designed for battle, whereas clerics are designed to protect and buff a party. At least 90% of the time, a mage will pound a cleric. Each class has different strengths/weaknesses. Mages make better solo characters than clerics. But a mage simply cannot maintain a party. It is comparing apples to oranges, and to pit an apple against an orange in an apple's format is silly.

Mages have these advantages: Imprisonment, Time Stop and various spell contingencies. Way better protection-removing spells. They also have Staff of Magi (virtually unlimited invisibility). These are not 'unfair' advantages, they are simply advantages.

Clerics have these advantages: sanctuary, healing, magic resistance, insect plague (if a druid). I will say that if a druid makes a successful attack with insect plague against a mage, then it's game over--sort of like a successful imprisonment spell, although not as immediate.

Regarding summoning: a dead heat, all things considered.

It would be fun to test out these theories in an arena.