when best to dual ranger->cleric? [IWD+HOW+TOLM]

[maciek]

As the subject states, I'm considering dual classing my ranger into a ranger/cleric, and I am wondering when would be the best time. I've seen in posts that level 9 is good, but I'm not sure if this takes into account the much higher exp point cap of IWD+HOW+TOLM... I mean technically one could go all the way to Ranger/Cleric 29/30, but that's probably not worth the wait. Any suggestions?

BTW, a lot of folks report that the ranger's tracking special ability as useless. Undoubtedly, the second/third/etc time through the game this will be the case, but I would advise first-time players to check it out. I find it very interesting and use it at the beginning of each area. The description you get is excellent at increasing the suspense (e.g. "you see a lot of small sickly yellow scales, but occasionally there is a large dark gold scale, smelling of sulphur"... hmmmmm.......)!

[ 06-28-2004, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: maciek ]

[Aerich]

When you dual class depends on your party composition and what you forsee that character doing. If you want to have an end-game hero, dual over at 12th or 13th level (preferably 13, for the extra 1/2 attack per round). Just be warned that you will not regain your ranger class for a looong time. It's probably not the best tactic on Core (normal) difficulty if it's your first time through - it makes the game harder throughout and a small bit easier at the end. All this doesn't mean that a R/C that duals at 7 or 9 will be weak at the end; far from it!

If you have plenty of tanks (warriors) and healing/buffing clerical spells in the party already, you can get away with dualing later. If you don't have a cleric (not counting the R/C), you probably want to dual sooner to get a decent Turn Undead ability and access to the cool clerical spells. If you forsee the R/C as a late-game tank with buffing spells, dual later.

One benefit of attaining a medium level (6) in Ranger before dualling to Cleric is access to first level druidic spells.

When I dual fighter-types over to another class, I usually wait at least until 7th level. It costs less than 100 000 XP and gives 2 more proficiencies (at 3rd and 6th level) and an extra 1/2 attack per round (at 7th). 9th level gives another weapon slot and the max HP you can get by die roll as a warrior, but cleric is not really much of a step down. If you have an 18 Con, it's probably worth it to keep the ranger until reaching 9, for the warriors HP bonus for Con.

With a party of six, I would dc at 7th level or 9th level (if you have another healer). I don't consider the improved Thac0 and slightly higher HP worth the huge experience it takes to get past level 9. Any such improvement can probably be made up with priest spells anyway.

I'm also a notorious priest-lover (for the game, not real life [img]smile.gif[/img] ) so earlier access to priest spells is a critical plus for me.

[maciek]

Thanks for the fast reply Aerich!

Yeah, already have a healer in the party. The ranger is currently the char with most HP by a fair margin (98HP, while next highest char is at 62HP). The only reason I'm considering dualing later is the higher level druid spells... according to the HoW table I'd have to wait to L10 for a level 2 slot, and L12 for a level 3 slot. Are level 2 and/or 3 druid spells worth the dual-class wait? (haven't plaid Druid, don't know)

Despite the high HP, I use the ranger mostly for ranged attacks, only bringing him into melee if my paladdin and cleric are taking serious damage, and I need to soak up further damage with a char that can take it. So I probably can go for a longer while without his melee abilities... but I'd be loath to have to give up his ranged (bow and/or thrown axe) abilities...

[Aerich]

You're welcome. How does your ranger have 36 more HP than your paladin?

In my book, the higher level druid spells aren't worth the wait for a R/C. Better to get the clerical spells sooner; extra clerical spells (even something as simple as Curse or Chant) can make your party a lot tougher. It's also impossible to have too many fourth level cleric spells.

If you want to experiment with druid spells, take a druid next time through. Better yet, take two! See my thread about priest-heavy parties for the fun you can have (but beware of spoilers when I start talking about party progress).

One thing you should know about dualing to cleric or druid is that once you dual, you MUST abide by the weapons restrictions of the priestly class (does not work that way for thief or mage, thankfully). If taking a Ranger or Fighter with the intention of dualing to Cleric or Druid, it's advisable to stack proficiencies in weapons you will be able to use after you dual.

A lack of bows resulting in more hits on your frontline can be overcome with the use of summons or movement inhibiting spells (Grease, Web, Slow). Also consider casting various Protection from Evil spells, Chant, Curse, Prayer, Recitation, Defensive Harmony, etc.

[maciek]

Hmmm, looks like I'll have to experiment to make sure this dualling will work the way I think it will. So I'd have to give up axes... would I be forced to give up bows/arrows too? Hmm, this puts things in a different light. It's odd that it is different from the Thief & Mage... I guess for game balance.

[ 06-28-2004, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: maciek ]

[Aerich]

Yep, no axes, swords, bows. I'd seriously consider having at least one, maybe two in your party able to use axes. There's some great ones. One of the plusses of fighter-heavy parties.

The whole cleric/druid dualing weapon restrictions makes sense if you think of it as a matter of choice and not opportunity. Thieves and Mages are restricted to weapons that are light, easy to learn, and readily available (opportunity restriction); if they dual to or from Fighter, that gives them the time and training to learn those weapons, and presumably they have adequate strength as well. Clerics only use blunt weapons because they are against shedding blood (although apparently bone crushing is ok), and druids use weapons and armor that have little refined metal in them (that's a choice, to be in line with the dictates of whatever deity).

As you pointed out, it's also a matter of game balance. An offensive/defensive spellcaster with fairly good HP, healing spells, and a composite longbow is kind of unfair, yes?

[ 06-28-2004, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Aerich ]

[maciek]

Argh, just checked some posts on newsgroups... I won't be even able to use bows... well that really puts my ranger dual classing in jeopardy.. all 6 proficiency points in bladed weapons (2 in axe, 2 in long sword, 2 in bow... typical tools of the ranger); it pains me to have to waste those.

Hmmm, I just might have to keep the ranger undualled then... the rest of the party is:
Paladin, Cleric, Thief, Bard, Necromancer

I can live without the extra cleric powers, while otherwise I don't have anyone that I can spare to pickup axe proficiencies (I planned that the ranger would be the one). Paladin I wanted to be mostly Great and Long sword, Thief mostly daggers and bow, while I'm not sure if I can do axes with Bard, and even then, he's kinda wimpy at the moment.

Ah well, wish I found about this constraint earlier...

[Aerich]

Yes, I'd say keep the ranger undualled. The pally can help your cleric a little with healing duties, and once the bard gets to 11th level, the regeneration song is yours.

Your party will do fine. One tank, one archer/tank, one healer/tank, a thief, a magic user, and a bard to fill in any holes. You can do axes with the bard, but you probably want to have him shoot or sing most of the time. Bards in melee = bad news, unless they've got mirror image going.

The first party I beat the game with was as follows: Paladin, Ranger, Cleric, Fighter/Thief (multi), Fighter/Mage (multi), and Bard. Pretty close to yours, I'd say, but with a little more weapon skills. It did well, despite that fact I didn't have HoW, and bards were mediocre.

The only thing I'd recommend with your party (or future parties) is to combine the thief with something. Straight thieves lack punch in IWD, and their skills go up fast enough to be able to deal with just about any situation made for thieves. That's particularly the case when you have a bard to pick the pockets; it allows you to spread the load over three categories instead of four. Make a fighter/thief for ranged attacks or melee power (exceptional strength + backstab = dead enemies) or a mage/thief for more magic.

Also, don't forget to take some blunt weapon proficiencies. There are some great maces and flails (stunning attacks are awesome), and there's a few good hammers as well.

[maciek]

Awesome, plain ranger it is then.

I failed to mention... my Thief is actually a Fighter/Thief multiclass... so yeah, lucked out there. The dwarvish cleric is taking care of handling blunt weapons (proficient in most blunts by now... alas, clerics can't specialize).

[Aerich]

You should still consider taking at least one blunt weapon proficiency with your ranger. The extra attack per round + a blunt weapon = eternal rest for skeletal undead. And don't pass up weapons that have a decent chance to stun; they can save your party when taking on tough monsters. ::cough, Bladed Skeletons and Tarnished Sentries::

Fighter/Thief multi classes are great. Almost a full-value fighter in addition to a good thief. Usually makes a great ranged fighter with a longbow or crossbow.