need some advice on a 2e dwarven fighter/cleric multiclass.

[blelliot]

See the title. I'm absolutely brand spanking new to 2e. I cut my teeth on 3e/3.5 and am totally lost. What is good for me to do? I will post what I roll for stats later today when I roll them, but I would love to hear just how powerful or weak this class combo could be. Thanks!

[Lord Torath]

Keep in mind you'll still be limited to the Cleric class weapons list (blunt or non-lethal weapons) barring house-rules/special permission from your DM.

A cleric doesn't gain a huge amount from multi-classing with warrior. Clerics have the 2nd best THAC0 progression, as well as the 2nd best hit points. You will get the best of both classes' saving throws (warriors have the worst at level 1, and the best at level 17+), but that's a very long-term payoff).

If you can put an 18 in Strength, you can get exceptional strength. If your constitution is 17+, you can get extra hit points. But as a cleric, you're going to want your 18 in Wisdom for bonus spells (especially important at low levels).

As a dwarf, you get +1 Con, as well as a bonus to saves vs magic and poison based on your constitution, but also have a chance of magic items malfunctioning if they are not specific to your class (cleric and fighter). What this really means is up to your DM.

Clerics can already wear any armor a warrior can wear, so you get no benefit there.

So a dwarven cleric-fighter can be more powerful than a straight-up dwarven cleric, but probably not by a huge amount. Unless you have an 18 Str and/or 17+ constitution, I'd probably recommend straight cleric.

As a dwarf, you will be slower than any humans you are with (yes, there's a reason Roy is always carrying Durkon when they're running from goblins), but you will have infravision (at least when no one has a torch lit near you) and can tell a lot about underground tunnels and stonework. Plus the already-mentioned saving throw bonuses.

[JadedDM]

There are some decent kits for dwarf fighter/clerics in The Complete Book of Dwarves, assuming your DM allows kits.

My favorite is the Champion which starts with a magical weapon and is allowed to specialize in it, like a single-class fighter. They also get Endurance, Intimidation and Religion for free. You need a STR and WIS of at least 15 and a CHA of at least 14, though.

[hamlet]

There are some decent kits for dwarf fighter/clerics in The Complete Book of Dwarves, assuming your DM allows kits.

My favorite is the Champion which starts with a magical weapon and is allowed to specialize in it, like a single-class fighter. They also get Endurance, Intimidation and Religion for free. You need a STR and WIS of at least 15 and a CHA of at least 14, though.

Ugh, I've never liked the rules in that book. Just terrible stuff in a lot of ways.



Anyway, to the OP: multiclassing with fighter is not always the best option for a cleric, but it works fairly well if you're going for a martially inclined cleric who likes to wade into combat and explain exactly why the filthy heathens are wrong.

You should talk to your DM about weapon specialization. Technically, according to the exact word of the rules, it's not allowed for multi-class fighters. However, it's one of the first rules overlooked or flat out ignored by folks and it's a big boost for a melee combatant at early levels. It gives you an extra attack every other round and gives you a nice bonus to hit and damage.

Remember as a cleric that just because you can cast healing spells doesn't mean that you always should. You'll only be the "healbot" if you let yourself become one. Learn that a lot of the other low level spells are actually quite potent in their way: like Bless, Aid, and, when you get there, Prayer. Hold Person is always nice to have, too, and Light can be an insta blind against a dangerous oponent.

Do consider the possibility of single classing. Multi-classing, while certainly one of the big "advantages" of being demi-human, comes with a built in trap. You have to split ALL your XP's evenly at all levels between both classes, which means that you'll lag behind your compatriots. It's often a wiser choice to stay single classed and focus on that rather than trying to spread yourself across mutliple functions. Though it does work out well enough (i.e., it won't cripple you).

Talk to your DM about weapons of choice for a deity. Not all deities might hold their clerics to the blunt weapons only restrictions, or permit all armors, etc. If there's priests of specific mythoi, you may be able to glean a few interesting things out of those for yourself.

Remember, a cleric is a 2nd (well, 1.5) string combatant. You're really a backup person with the ability to thunk heads as needed, but you are neither as durable nor as powerful as a pure fighter. Your spells can change the course of even the deadliest combats. Learn how to use them.

[MeeposFire]

Even if they don't allow you to specialize you could use weapon expertise which gives you the extra attacks of WS but is allowed to multiclass warriors or you could look up a kit that does it.

As for the multiclass I have found that it is nearly always worth it in the end unless you are playing with level limits for demi humans and you are going to actually exceed those limits. I have found that extra attacks and more/better use of weapon proficiencies is better than straight cleric and if you do the math you tend to lose little in doing it. You are usaully just a level behind the cleric for most of the game but will have slightly better thac0, saves, HP, proficiencies, and attack. Most of the time it is a worthwhile trade though if you dig enough you can find specialty priests that can do about as much.

For example you could play a specialty priest of Helm, Torm, Tyr, or Malar and you get the extra attacks that warriors get but not have to split XP.

[WinWin]

Depending on attributes, it may not be worth it. Unless you can immediately benefit from warrior advantages as a cleric, there may be little reason to go with the multiclass, IMHO.

Warrior advantages being exceptional strength and the more advantageous hit points from 17+ constitution.

Higher level warriors have other abilities, such as improved attacks per round in general and 'sweep' attacks vs. weak enemies (1 attack per level vs. low/sub HD enemies). Actually achieving those higher levels while splitting your experience is going to be challenging.

[Rhynn]

Actually achieving those higher levels while splitting your experience is going to be challenging.

People say this a lot, but it's just not true. A multi-class PC with two classes is going to be exactly one level behind single-class PCs up until past 9th-11th level (when the XP requirements stop doubling and just turn into +X/level). IMO, if you're a demihuman, multiclassing is always a good idea (and a must if you're playing with level limits and are likely to reach them, since it will give you versatility while letting you benefit from earning XP longer).

It is true, though, that fighter and cleric don't have great synergy. Fighter/thief, cleric/thief, fighter/mage, mage/thief, and mage/cleric all have much better synergy, IMO. Basically, if you like the idea of being a 5th-level cleric/5th-level fighter with THAC0 16 instead of a 6th-level cleric with THAC0 18, go for it. The advantage will increase slowly but steadily, and you will get those extra attacks.


Ugh, I've never liked the rules in that book. Just terrible stuff in a lot of ways.

The Complete Book of Dwarves and The Complete Book of Elves are both full of really overpowered kits, IMO. The Completes for fighters, clerics, mages, and thieves pretty much just have kits for flavor or specialization (hyper-specialization in the case of some cleric and mage kits) - most of the thief kits are "equal exchanges," for instance - but the elf and dwarf kits are just straight-up power boosts you'd be crazy to pass on.

[WinWin]

YMMV, but I always found early AD&D advancement progressed at a crawl, from both sides of the table.

It's something like 1500xp to hit 2nd level as a cleric, 2000 to hit second as a fighter. Things like kobolds net you 7xp each, orcs 15 xp and other monsters in your range may go to 35xp, 65xp or 120xp if you are pushing it against some of the tougher mundane humanoids.

You're spitting those rewards with members of your party, first of all, then splitting them again if you are multiclassed. Being a level or 2 behind single classed allies may not seem like much by level 5, but it is kind of a big deal when starting out a new game at level 1.

Now if your DM has fast tracked advancement, either by handing out generous quest xp, or by using some of the optional, class specific, bonus xp awards (such as spellcasters getting 50-100xp per spell level cast, rogues getting bonus xp for 'aquired' treasure, etc.), then the early stages of a campaign can be less problematic for a multiclassed character. It is also less of an issue if you are starting out with a set xp total, as you have essentially skipped the hurdle posed by low level fragility, which can last twice, or 3 times as long for a multiclassed character.

[Rhynn]

YMMV, but I always found early AD&D advancement progressed at a crawl, from both sides of the table.

It's something like 1500xp to hit 2nd level as a cleric, 2000 to hit second as a fighter. Things like kobolds net you 7xp each, orcs 15 xp and other monsters in your range may go to 35xp, 65xp or 120xp if you are pushing it against some of the tougher mundane humanoids.

That's largely because 2E hides the real source of XP as an optional rule in a prose paragraph. It's the single most outrageously bad decision made in the 2E corebooks.

2E revised DMG, page 69, last paragraph gives the XP-for-treasure rule. In the original 2E DMG, it at least stands out nicely in a blue box on page 47.

Given that in 1E, you were supposed to get 75% of your XP from treasure, it stands to reason that 2E PCs will advance at about 1/4 the rate originally intended (and that 2E becomes excessively combat-focused, especially as the suggested non-combat awards are piddling).

I've never run 2E without XP-for-treasure, and I can't imagine ever doing so.

[WinWin]

I have played in Basic games with gold for xp, but I have never used or played with that rule in 2nd Edition.

I used the class based rewards for bonus xp when running a game, so rogues got bonus xp for treasure aquired using their class skills, spellcasters got bonus xp for casting spells and warriors got bonus xp for the hit dice of enemies they killed.

Those class based awards resulted in faster progression at early levels. From around levels 4-7, progression slowed down. It sped up again after level 7 for most characters, simply due to the capabilities of many of the characters (plus their magical items, henchmen and followers) allowing for extended adventures vs. high xp value enemies.

I can't imagine handing out millions of gp worth of treasure to a group, simply because I mainly used the procedurally generated treasure tables in the DMG, unless I was running a purchased module, or a player had requested a specific quest.

I should point out the highest level game I ran went from level 1 to an average of 15 over a 3 year campaign. Something like 2 and a half million xp on average. One of the wealthier characters had around 150k gold in the treasury of their temple.

Most games I played typically were short duration campaigns, in which level 5 seemed to be the cut-off. Treasure rewards would have to have been increased significantly in order to make a difference to the levels gained in those games.

[Rhynn]

I can't imagine handing out millions of gp worth of treasure to a group, simply because I mainly used the procedurally generated treasure tables in the DMG, unless I was running a purchased module, or a player had requested a specific quest.

IIRC the 1E and 2E tables end up getting you about the same around of gp value of treasure from e.g. dragons (although the lack of XP for finding and keeping magic items hurts). The combat XP for an orc camp is next to nothing compared to their treasure; a dragon's hoard is, on average, worth 100-200% the dragon's combat XP; etc. To me, that's absolutely how it's supposed to work. And obviously advancement is going to slow down over time, yes.

Incidentally, the individual XP awards are completely borked for rogues, with the 2 XP / gp share of treasure (which is also completely incompatible with the XP-for-treasure rule); rogues already advance twice as fast as anyone else, but the amount of XP they get for e.g. a dragon's hoard is ridiculous.

[MeeposFire]

IN 2e you either have to use the gold for XP, use a lot of high value encounters, or create and use a lot of "quest" XP.

You obviously used lots of combat XP but unless you are getting high value it will take a long time to reach higher levels.

Rhynne uses gold for XP which will help you level much faster.

Video games like Baldurs Gate 2 use quest XP to offset the slow progression. At times it is a single amount that is evenly split between the entire party and in other cases (or in addition to that) each character gets their own specific amount of XP. In BG2 this is used because treasure for XP would be hard to rule and they know you need that XP to advance as combat XP makes it go so slowly. I think it was their way of implementing the treasure for XP frule without actually doing so. I thas the advantage of not being tied directly for treasure which means you can get XP without stealing or killing. My rule of thumb would be to calculate the treasure value of the event and give that as quest XP per the gold for XP rule and use it regardless of whether they take treasure or not. If you do this do not use the actual treasure for XP rule.

[blelliot]

I spoke with my DM, and he informed me I would be able to qualify for weapon specialization, weapon mastery, a keep, a temple, basically anything a cleric or fighter could qualify for, my charachter can as well. Also I will be specialty priest of Moradin annd will receive the benefits of that as well. He also wants me to wait to roll stats until the first night of the campaign. So this should be fun.

[Jay R]

I spoke with my DM, and he informed me I would be able to qualify for weapon specialization, weapon mastery, a keep, a temple, basically anything a cleric or fighter could qualify for, my charachter can as well. Also I will be specialty priest of Moradin annd will receive the benefits of that as well. He also wants me to wait to roll stats until the first night of the campaign. So this should be fun.

That should settle it. Always go with an idea you like that the DM is actively supporting.

[hamlet]

That should settle it. Always go with an idea you like that the DM is actively supporting.

Amen. The character you want to play and have fun doing so always trumps the one with more power or greater utility or anything else.

In the end, if you're having fun, you're doing it right.

[blelliot]

Holy moses! That is the first time I've ever heard that from a member on the forums. Thank you all for your help on this. I found some nifty ideas in the complete fighters handbook, priests handbook, and dwarves handbook. Got a nifty idea for an earthquake causing hammer. And a fire breathing iron pony. Hehehehe;-)

[Jay R]

Don't forget the second half of my comment - "that the DM is actively supporting."

All other things being equal, an idea that the DM supports works better than an idea the DM doesn't really like.

In a game of original D&D, I rolled STR 4, DEX 16, CHA high, WIS low, and the rest low-to-average. I was considering dumping him, when the DM said, "That's a nine-year-old kid. He could get away with anything." So I went with it - in large part because the character idea was exciting to both me and the DM.

He once took down a sentry by walking up sniffling and crying, and saying, "Where's my daddy? I can't find him. I'm cold, and I'm tired, and I'm hungry, and I'm thirsty, and I want my daddy!" As the sentry bent down to comfort him, the kid sneak attacked.

[blelliot]

He is quite supportive of the hammer and the lava breathing adamantine horse. It will be quite a few levels before I can make them. I'm very excited to roll my stats. :-)

[ken-do-nim]

That's largely because 2E hides the real source of XP as an optional rule in a prose paragraph. It's the single most outrageously bad decision made in the 2E corebooks.

2E revised DMG, page 69, last paragraph gives the XP-for-treasure rule. In the original 2E DMG, it at least stands out nicely in a blue box on page 47.

Given that in 1E, you were supposed to get 75% of your XP from treasure, it stands to reason that 2E PCs will advance at about 1/4 the rate originally intended (and that 2E becomes excessively combat-focused, especially as the suggested non-combat awards are piddling).

I've never run 2E without XP-for-treasure, and I can't imagine ever doing so.

Yeah, when I ran 2E, I still used the 1E DMG. The 2E DMG also lacks gp sale prices for magic items, which again in 1E are supposed to generate XP as well if the party decides not to keep them. 1E advancement with magic item acquisition as it is per published modules is pretty fast, and so using the 1E DM rules in a 2E game keeps that advancement fast - actually even faster, because the 2E MM has more xp for a monster kill.

[Rhynn]

Yeah, when I ran 2E, I still used the 1E DMG. The 2E DMG also lacks gp sale prices for magic items, which again in 1E are supposed to generate XP as well if the party decides not to keep them. 1E advancement with magic item acquisition as it is per published modules is pretty fast, and so using the 1E DM rules in a 2E game keeps that advancement fast - actually even faster, because the 2E MM has more xp for a monster kill.

Really, every DM, no matter the edition of D&D they're using, could (and should!) get some use out of the 1E DMG. :smallbiggrin: