Cleric vs. Druid

Remove all ads!

I've been playing B.G for a while, but never played either a cleric or druid, which one is better?

 

I would go for the cleric

 

Why?

 

And I would go for druid, just to oppose Lokken.

 

Druids have more offensive and summon spells while clerics are focused with healing and defense but they have some offensive spells. They both can use the same amount of weapons but druids are limited to leather armors while clerics can use full plate. Both classes would be equal.



[This message has been edited by Tyresian (edited June 05, 2001).]

 

Okay. Thanks.

 

I think someone is speaking from pnp experience and not BG experience. Don't even consider a druid in BG, especially not without Tales of the Sword coast installed. First on weapons and armor:
-Both druids and clerics can wear up to full plate with no types of penalties to spells or combat or whatever
-Clerics can use any blunt weapons, but druids are very limited in weapon choices. They can only wield clubs, darts, staffs, spears, slings, daggars, and I believe if you have tales of the sword coast installed, they can also wield scmitars, which opens up frostbrand as an available weapon. I'm not totally sure they can use it, but it's a more powerful weapon than any of the blunt weapons available in the game at any rate.
Now onto spells:
-A druids spell list is VERY limited in BG. After level 2, it is extremely lacking, as aparently the designers didn't put any real thought into it. They revieve all of three level 3 spells I believe. All they can muster is call lightning (cool spell but usless indoors where most of the big battles take place), hold animal(not very useful), and another spell possibly. A cleric can't cast some of these AFIK, but their list is much larger and more usefull.

All in all, a druid and cleric can wear the same armor. A druid may have an edge on weapons if they can wield frostbrand. A druid's spell list is extremely limited. The cleric's spell list is much better from an offfensive, defensive, and healing standpoint.

 

I agree. Clerics are better fighters than druids.

 

Cleric all the way...but who am i to say? never played either one myself...

 

My advice: Take a Cleric or a Fighter/Druid,not a pure druid...

 

Just a small point, Crawl says that both Druids and Clerics can wear full plate with no penalties. Surely this is not true. The manual says a druid is limited to leather armour. I admit to never having played a Druid so I don't know if this is a mistake in the manual. However, I think it is more likely that you are being confused by Jaheira's ability to wear full plate. She is allowed to do so because she is a Fighter/Druid.

 

Druids are limited to leather, staff and sling. Do not use them!

 

So now a more difficult question:

What's better, A cleric or a fighter/druid???

 

Druids can also use daggers, clubs, and scimitars(i think, forget if its the same in bg2 as in bg) And drizzt has those nice scimitars...

(me being a dumbass originally posted thinking it was on the bg2 board so i had to do some quick edits)

Besides, druids do not suck the all mighty like you guys make them out to be. With a quick bark skin they have decent armor. They can make lots of goodberries also. You guys gotta get in touch with your inner nature and go hug a tree

[This message has been edited by Tyresian (edited June 05, 2001).]

 

Ok, I admit I have never played with druid, but you must realize the coolness of a dwarven cleric wielding that golden war hammer +2. You also have to put a amnish helm on him and the hugest shield possible.

 

Damn Slappy you're absoloutly right. I wasn't even thinking there. Yes, I've only played fighter/druids (Jahiera briefly in BG and my own version in BG2). I don't know what I was thinking there; you're right, of course. I just looked it up. Druids can only wear leather armor. However, fighter/druids can wear any armor without penalties to spell casting.

Now if I were going to play a multi or dual character....still a fighter/cleric as the druid spells just completely suck. And I'm still not sure if a fighter/druid can use frostbrand in BG. I think they treated Drizzt's Scmitars as plain long swords in the origional. I know they actually had some plain scmitars in the expansion, so they might have added in some programing for actualy scmitars that druids could use. Dunno about that. In any case, a well made fighter/druid with frostbrand would be a better fighter, but their spells would still suck.

 

Cleric.

 

druids suck in bg but in bg2 their sun covered so long by a cloud comes out

 

I've dabbled with clerics for years and actually prefer the fighter/druid in BG2. The different weapons are fun and the spells, while most feel they are inferior to cleric spells, when combined with the weapons of the fighter/druid make them very effective and fun to play. I mean c'mon, casting spells for your ranged attacks then wading in with sword and shield? sounds good to me.

 

Druid.
Comeon if i can solo with one through bg2 then they have to be quite good.