Do you need a Cleric in this game?

Remove all ads!

I'm wondering if a Cleric is really needed in this game.

I figure (maybe) a Paladin and a Druid can make up for not having a Cleric. This argument assumes HoW is installed.

Looking forward to responses.

 

Short answer; Yes
Long Answer: Hell yes.

It's a pure (and fun too) dungeon crawl hack and slash. The battles are quite hard. You just [/i] need [/i] a dedicated healer. Plus druid IMHO doesn't have acces to the greater healing spells.

 

Ok, cool. I really thought I'd need one, but I wasn't sure. I think that it could be possible without one, but it'd be a whole lot harder. I'd only consider it with a very small party.

 

I would say, you could even use TWO of them Clerics

 

Indeed, i would not skimper on a cleric, one of my last groups had a cleric/thief, druid, paladin, and ranger and never had enough healing.

Infact i would make certain to have a singleclasss cleric, he/she just have so many spells you will love through the game. Like healing, healing, healing, healing, raise dead, healing and of corse healing.

 

Actually the druid does have access to all healing spells, so you could technically replace the cleric with a druid (although in this scenario a Fighter/Druid would be a better option). Druids even get a mass healing level 7 spell (Mist of Eldath) which is quite good if you have a full party.

You could always scrape both the cleric and the druid and get a Ranger/Cleric, capable of casting all spells from both classes

And I wouldn't really take the Paladin for his spellcasting abilities. I'd look at him solely as a fighter capable of using the most powerful weapon in the game.

 

Ziad, why a F/D over a D? And if you had room for both a Druid and a Cleric in the party, would you have both of them single classed, or both multi? Or one of each?

 

Clerics also help tremendously with Turning Undead. Their spells are a little weaker than Druids compared to BG2 though. (at least, in my unexpanded game) Oh well, Dale Keeper helps here, yes?

I am running with a cleric (who will be dualled into a mage at level 14 or so) and fighter two-person party now, and we did the Vale of Shadows with ease. (since my cleric level was high, turning undead worked wonders)

 

You have a Bard! A full time cleric is no longer necessary. Atleast, not for simply his healing spells.
But the IWD cleric does have some pretty good high level damage spells. You might want one for those. Your idea of having a multiclass cleric (R/C or F/C) will work well enough.

I had a crazy idea of starting a party with a Bard and a human cleric in its ranks. When the Bard gets to L11, the Cleric gets dualled to Ranger. That way you have the healing when you need it and a bunch of useful spells later. Just never tried it.

 

@Shrikant: You're probably mixing up rulesets here. In IWD1 (2E) bards cast mage spells, and don't have a single healing spells available.

@Klorox: because I think that some of the really good spells the druid has (including the allmighty Iron Skin) can only be taken advantage of if you melee him, which is not very feasible with a pure druid (crap THAC0 and number of attacks). Multi hiim with a fighter though, and you practically get a fighter that can cast spells without any limitation on armor. The only real limitation is weapons, and that's not so bad in HoW because one particular scimitar is actually quite powerful.

I tend to play IWD1 on Insane (more challenging, therefore more fun), and at that level you gain levels all the way to the top with single-classes. Therefore I use a lot of multiclasses. Whether I'd take both F/C and F/D... tricky. I guess it depends on whether you feel you need 2 healers, and whether you like the druid's innate abilities. If you don't, then R/C achieves the same end result (casting all priest spells) with far less micromanagement. I personally like to use moderately useful abilities (such as shapeshifting) and therefore like druids.

 

Actually hes not, he is just asuming you have Heart of Winter installed. Wich gives bards all the various bardsongs, at level 11 you get the "Warchant of Sith" wich have the nice ability of regenerating entire party.

 

^Still, I do believe that a good cleric is better for healing than a song. Though I don't know its regeneration rate. ıs it that powerful that it can actually replaca any healing spell?

 

Don't forget clerics can buff! While most buff spells (chant, aid, luck, etc.) don't stack, its not a bad idea to have more than one character be able to cast those battle altering buffing spells.

My current party includes my two favorite cleric combos: fighter/cleric and cleric mage!

fighter/clerics IMO get the best of both worlds. Clerics are the next best weapon damage dealers behind fighers and fighter subclasses (rangers, paladins), but they still kinda suck as meat sheilds and damage deals. They have lower HP's due to rolling a a D8 vs a D10, they cannot specialize and they THAC0 scores do not improve anywhere near the same rate as fighters. But fighter/clerics get all of those bonuses, plus the have no problems casting regardless of armor!

cleric/mages the the best of the other two worlds. They are the all-in-one-spells-to-rule-the-world characters. Both arcane and saintly spells in one package. Healing, buffing, and blasting as artillery pieces from the back rows. They are more durable versions of mages with the extra hit die plus the get the mage's much improved saving throws. They can wear helms with no penality, saving the robe wearers from critical hits a.k.a. instant death. In a pinch, just slap some armor on them, give them a good plus weapon, cast Holy Strength or Strenght of One and Bingo! extra melee help/meat shield!

 

The way I played it, one charecter with the best AC or HP would stay at the front attracting all the attention. Others would use two-handed weapons, ranged weapons or spells safely from behind him. Never get into a fight with the front tank being at less than 50%HP.

This way there would always be enough time for the Bard to get people to max HP by the time they reached the next fight scene. Typically, the Song of the Sith would heal about 50HP by the time I had collected and sorted all the junk from a large battlefield. The only useful healing spell remained HEAL.

I am not saying Clerics are useless but that in a pinch you could leave home without one.

 

Woops, sorry about the 2E/3E confusion. My mistake.

The problem with regeneration is that, if one of your PCs is close to death in the middle of a combat, it's not really going to save him. And at some points in the game you are attacked as soon as you pop into an area, and usually everyone's after your lowest-HP character, so I think that Heal because essential, if only to save said character from an untimely death.

I guess it ultimately depends on your playing strategy. I also tend to have only one warrior engaged in melee and everyone else with either missiles or spells, but I still get to use Heal quite often.

 

Also remember that Shrikant knows this game better than hes own keyboard, so he pretty much knows how to line up for every fight so noone attacks anyone but the meatshield in 99% of the situations.

That does help alot.

 

If you look at it this way... yes, it does help

Ok, I give up. I admit it, I personally need one healer, and besides I like clerics (as well as druids, as you might have guessed). But yes, you can play the game without a cleric, although it can be significantly trickier.

Not for Shrikant of course

 

I don't know if I should blush red or smack the **** out of you two

But really. Once you are past 25% of the game (be it the IWD series or BG II) you just are too damn strong. Sure there still are tough fights and you might need to reload a few battles since they came out wrong but build a strong party and you can come out ok. And there is practically never any time limit so you can break out and go back for some healing from temples.
Ofcourse the HoF mode is a completely different story.

One of my strongest parties was a Paladin, Ranger, Bard, Thief[9]/S Mage. Never had problems.

 

Nice party, Shrikant! The biggest problem for you must have been waiting for the thief abilities to reactiviate!

 

Me to both of them, and in my parties bard and cleric was more important that wizard in most cases. they work perfect togeher for buffing up the party with bonuses.

That part always anoyed me. I do belive there should have been some timelimits (at least on the harder skillevels) before things happened etc, if only that the enemies regrouped and hunted you down...

Also your party, why did you pick ranger ? (hey i love rangers, but...) their spellcasting and stealth isnt that much used. and a fighter would surelly be better for either melee or ranged attacks. Their special abilities aint exactlly great either. At least multiclassed with a cleric they become rather usefull.

Unless you just happen to like rangers