PDA

View Full Version : Cleric Ranger?



shadow_archmagi
2008-08-17, 03:13 PM
So, a friend recently submitted a build that was cleric2/ranger2/fighter 1.

Can that possibly work? I'm not charging for multiclass, but I'm wondering what possible advantages/disadvantages there might be to that much multiclass.

Spiryt
2008-08-17, 03:15 PM
Well, both utilise Wisdom...

Ranger really could use some selfbuffs.

Fighter feat is really usefull.

With nice concept and story explaining that, it's very fine multiclass IMO.

Probably nothing very powerful, but nice.

hotel_papa
2008-08-17, 03:17 PM
Off the top of my head, if it was an elvan cleric of Corellian Latherian (sp?) with the war domain, and took the archery combat focus for rangers that would be a good bit of longbow sweetness. I'm sensing zen archery will be/is one of his feats.

Other than that... a militant wing of the church of Obad-Hai or Ehlonna?

HP

PS Not sure where I found them, but I know arrows of CLW exist...

shadow_archmagi
2008-08-17, 03:17 PM
Well, both utilise Wisdom...

Ranger really could use some selfbuffs.

Fighter feat is really usefull.

With nice concept and story explaining that, it's very fine multiclass IMO.

Probably nothing very powerful, but nice.

Everyone in the game is a total noob, except me and another player who is familiar with 3.5 but has never experienced psionics (and is a psychic warrior, acccordingly) so power won't matter too much.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-08-17, 03:22 PM
Have him use the Prestige Ranger (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/prestigiousCharacterClasses.htm#prestigeRanger) instead. Better in the long run as a multiclass.

Spiryt
2008-08-17, 03:23 PM
I however assume that he plans on taking another level in cleric - 3 level will give 2nd level spells, and some other would be nice, but completely unnecessary.

But only 2 levels of cleric are from mechanical point of view a bit waste. 3 are just OK, many fine spells.

Eldariel
2008-08-17, 03:34 PM
If he wants to be a martial character, Cleric 2 is a good split - it should be Cloistered Cleric from a mechanical standpoint though. However, purely from optimization standpoint, he definitely should be a straight Cleric instead; Clerics can learn Survival and pick Track if they feel so inclined, and Cleric power progression is exponential (each Cleric-level makes all your spells more powerful and last longer, gives you ability to cast the old spells more times per day and gives you access to all-new more powerful level of spells), while martial power progression is linear (you only get +1 to hit and potentially damage every level; there's no special advancement in the side). Therefore, a straight Cleric is more powerful than Cleric/Martial always.

So yea, Cloistered Cleric 1 gives you Turn Undead, three Domains (which you can mix and match for feats and Devotions), good saves and great skillpoints (6+Int), costing you only 1 BAB and low HD. It's definitely worth it for a warrior character too. But Cleric 1/Fighter 2/Ranger 2 is going to get steamrolled by a Cleric 5. Cleric 2 is even worse, since the second level of Cleric gives the character literally nothing of substance - only bit longer spell durations and one more spell; all of that is secondary though since dipping Cleric means that you won't really be using the spells. If going for spells, you have to go all the way. As it stands, he'd probably pick something handy like True Strike in the Domain-slot (probably with the Domain Spontaneity-variant) and just use that one, useful, non-level related spell whenever he needs the effect.


Cleric 1/X 4 is a decent Fighter.
Cleric 5 is a decent Fighter and on its way to one of the most powerful things in D&D. Although a 2-level dip of Ranger for Rapid Shot for a Low Dex Cleric Archer might make sense sometimes.


If I was making a character whose flavour is a "Wilderness Cleric", I'd make a (Cloistered) Cleric with Travel-domain (Cloistered if I feel I want to be a skill monkey more than a warrior) and one other, possibly dipping something like Ruathar for Spot and Listen in class.

shadow_archmagi
2008-08-17, 03:40 PM
Hmm. I should probably mention that the other characters are a psychic warrior and a beguiler and an undecided; what would I have to do to knock this character in line with them in terms of in/out of combat usefulness.

SurlySeraph
2008-08-17, 03:40 PM
He's not trying to sneak some kind of overpowered build past you, if that's what you're asking. It's no more powerful than a pure cleric 5 or ranger 5 would be.

shadow_archmagi
2008-08-17, 03:44 PM
He's not trying to sneak some kind of overpowered build past you, if that's what you're asking. It's no more powerful than a pure cleric 5 or ranger 5 would be.

Oh, I know. She hasn't played before. I'm saying

1. Is this class on the same level as the other two?
2. If not, how to raise (probably)/lower it to the correct level?

Totally Guy
2008-08-17, 03:45 PM
However, purely from optimization standpoint, he definitely should be a straight Cleric instead; Clerics can learn Survival and pick Track if they feel so inclined

That was my last character.

Eldariel
2008-08-17, 03:51 PM
Depends on how much the others are going to optimize their characters. If the Psy War is optimized for damage and the Beguiler is played intelligently, a Cleric 5 without DMM: Persist would be on the right level probably (you say she is new though? Then she could use an introduction to her better spells on each level from you). Much depends on the details of what exactly she wants to excel in. Cleric/Ranger combo with Ranger primary really only works as a Swift Hunter without running into the problem of being way weaker than a straight Cleric (about on par with a straight Ranger) - mostly in that it'll have less skills than a Ranger so it's a worse skill monkey, and still not having level-appropriate casting to make up for that.

Cleric 10/Ranger 10 only gets level 5 spells, which is only slightly better than Ranger 20's spellcasting, and the expense of that is 3 points of BAB and 40 skill points. And Ranger 20 cannot really contribute in combat anyways without an incredibly pimped out weapon (or when fighting his few most favoured enemies). Ask her if she wants to be a better spellcaster and combatant (that would be straight Cleric) or a better spotter/tracker/sneak (Ranger/Scout with a Cleric-dip).

Chronos
2008-08-17, 03:52 PM
It looks to me like a case where the player has the classes a little too pigeonholed: All religious characters must be clerics, all outdoorsy characters must be rangers, and all combative characters must be fighters. Therefore, goes the reasoning, if his character concept is someone who fights to defend the forest wherein he sees the majesty of the gods, the character must necessarily be a multiclass of cleric, ranger, and fighter.

Of course, this isn't necessary at all. You could, if you liked, attach that character concept to a straight ranger, straight cleric, or straight fighter, just as well as you could with a multiclass. Heck, you could give that same personality to a monk/sorcerer, if you wanted.

Spiryt
2008-08-17, 03:59 PM
Or the point of that multiclass is that he wants abilites of Cleric, Ranger and Fighter at the same time (although I can be wrong).

Even if it's not optimal, it's still his choice. And it really doesn't look so weak to me, to be unreasonable one. ANd it can has interesting effect.

Eldariel
2008-08-17, 04:08 PM
Well, it's going to mean that she'll be unable to actually deal damage in combat, or cast spells of appropriate level later on (around the first levels, high Str is all it takes to contribute in melee, but later on, just Strength-bonuses aren't going to cut it). Therefore, she'll mostly contribute out of combat, which in turn means that the Fighter- and Cleric-levels are going to bite back due to the lost skillpoints.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-08-17, 04:12 PM
Again, Cleric heading into Prestige Ranger. Or straight Ranger. Figure out what flavor she wants, then get back to us, but either of those works as a Divine Guardian of the woods.