Usefulness of F/M/C

Remove all ads!

Can someone give reasons why add F/M/C to party, I believe that C/M is better because of faster spell progression.
Is there some good things about that tripple class?

[ May 25, 2006, 16:50: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

The F/C/M gets about twice as many attacks/round, better thac0,damage and HP.

For the biggest part of the game (everything except the expansions if you play the game the intended way) the the CFM's cleric and mage levels are always only 0-1 level behind the CM's levels.

At the end of the normal game each character has about 1,100,000 XP, that's F/C/M 9/9/10 compared to C/M 10/11. There is no spell a C/M can cast the F/C/M with this XP can't.

At the end of the expansions each character has about 2,500,000 XP, that's F/C/M 11/11/12 compared to C/M 13/13.
The F/C/M can still cast all the spells the C/M can. But he gains:

- 18/.. strength
- more HP
- +3 thac0
- +2 damage because of specialisation
- 2 attacks instead of 1 attack/round

So you better should ask the question: Why should I add a C/M if a F/C/M is so much better ?

Only if you don't have another priest and arcane spellcacter in your party and want the spells as fast as possible, a C/M is considerable.

As primary mage or cleric neither the C/M nor the F/C/M aren't really good, they neither learn to cast level 7 mage nor cleric spells, so better take pure or dualclassed clerics or mages.
A F/C/M or C/M should only act as backup.

There is one situation where a C/M is really good: a human cleric9/mage in combination with a ranger7/cleric and bard. If you add a F/T or F/M/T and a dualclassed druid you get the perfect 5 character party imho.

[ May 26, 2006, 10:54: Message edited by: kmonster ]

 

It's better near the end game, when you're at a really high level. If you just want a spellcaster, dropping the Fighter is better.

 

If you already hav good enough fighter types, you can afford a pure caster type: C/M. It will be more powerful in the short term in terms of spell casting.