Their popularity has no bearing on the issue. Those particular mods as set out in that post are, as I said, only there because of one forum poster's idea that he/she got 'stickied' by an admin.

You have a very queer notion of conservative. Except for bug fixes and patches, those mods are in no sense of the word conservative.

They are conservative as distinct from radical, and if you want to continue this discussion I suggest we get our own thread. Or use the main thread itself.

I suggest you drop it. They're not conservative. Period.

Okay, so most of what I said is still good, except about the kits, right? And those DO become available to unkitted clerics importing to BG2 I believe... and romances in BG2, if he's playing both.

Yeah, and even that isn't necessary come BG2 when you get light AC 1 armor (or ToB when there is an AC -2 light armor).

-The bit about stealth and plate seems to be fine, and is simple fact.

-The bit about the best cleric is a matter of opinion, and it is based on what the player is looking to do with the character. If he just wants cleric spells from the slot, then a pure cleric is better than F/C or R/C because the pure gets more cleric spells faster.

-BG2 does have romances and kits, while unmodded BG1 does not.

-However, a lot of the discussion in the thread is somewhat tangential to the OP's question, which is "I rolled a cleric, now what do I do with him?" Any talk about different cleric combination builds (except dual class options) carries an implied "Ditch the cleric you rolled and roll up this other one". Yes, talking about possibilities for a Ranger/Cleric multi does involve talking about clerics, but his current character almost certainly can't do it because he's (almost certainly) a pure cleric.

Hey ghaand, what race and stats did you roll?

Once you get to ToB, AC becomes pointless, as enemies will be able to hit you on a natural 2 regardless. If you want a character to tank, you will need to use other methods, like the Armor of Faith spell or the Hardiness HLA, that provide protection via means other than AC. Then again, if you really want a character to tank in ToB, the best choice is actually a Sorcerer with a suitable spell selection, as protective spells can completely negate attacks regardless of THAC0 and AC.

For BG1 slightly, but not substantially.

A Cleric on 10,000 XP would be on Level 4. A Ranger/Cleric on the same XP would be Level 3/3. That same character on 12,000 XP would be Level 4, or Level 3/4. At 20,000 XP they would be Level 5 or Level 4/4. Second Edition AD&D was boss for early multiclassing - you're typically one level behind. And if your character by virtue of a multi-class can replace the utility of an NPC then you get that XP boost too. Number-crunching, the XP limit in BG is 89k, and TotSC is 161k. A Cleric max levels are BG 7, SC 8; the Ranger/Cleric levels are BG R6/C6. SC R7/C7. Exactly one level behind.

If you're going to continue to BG to things get very different. Three million XP nets you a Level 21 Cleric, or a Level 12 Ranger / 13 Cleric. That's 6x vs 2x spells of 5th and 6th level, and 2x 7th level spells vs still 200,000 XP away from your debut 7th level.

PS, the original poster ghaad responded to the Half-Orc Cleric/Fighter to say he couldn't do that due to not having EE. That's why I pointed out the BG-friendly options. That's all.

I think you mean BG2 here.

That's a fair bit of example numbers that just prove my point. :)

A multi-class cleric requires twice as much XP (assuming two classes) as a pure cleric to reach any given level of cleric. A pure will hit level 3 right when a multi hits level 2, and the pure hits level 4 when the multi hits level 3. There will be a very short range where they are both level 4 clerics for the same XP total, but the pure quickly hits level 5 and gains 3rd level spells about 6.5k XP before the multi.

I won't try to argue whether a pure cleric is a stronger character overall compared to a given multi-class (in BG 1 or 2). That bullet point was simply stating that if what you want from a character slot is cleric spell casting, then a pure cleric does that better than a multi-class cleric because you get more cleric spell slots sooner.

Jumping topics slightly: I wasn't criticizing the discussion having branched into various kinds of clerics, because maybe the OP is willing to reroll if he hears about a cleric variation and decides he likes that variation more than what he has now. On the flip side, he might not be willing to start all over because he's already made X amount of progress in the game.

Agreed, one level slower. At least in BG.

In newer AD&D you're 50% slower. So you could be a Mage 8 or Cleric 8 or Mage/Cleric 4/4 (or some variant). That's BRUTAL for spellcasters.

What do you mean by "newer AD&D" ? As far as I know Advanced rules only mean D&D 2 (and D&D 2.5?) . I maybe wrong but I think you were talking about D&D 3.0 and onwards, not AD&D.

LOL I didn't even realise/notice they dropped the Advanced.

"My day" started with the D&D boxed sets through to 2nd Edition, plus the SSI games. [They really do not stand the test of time, unfortunately].

Because of their lack of armor restrictions, Clerics make for decent front line fighters with enough Con.

Frankly, Clerics fulfill a role and that role is healing and support. If you're not doing or making the best of a cleric's spell casting, then what's the point?

Other classes are meant for front line fighting. Paladins hardly have the Cleric's range of spells but they do healing better than anyone with Lay On Hands and have low-level support spells like bless, etc.

Dual/multiclassing spell casters prohibits your top tier spells. For clerics, having an extra +1 to weapon proficiency, a marginally improved THAC0 and a bit more HP isn't worth it.

Just give em a morningstar and some plate mail and let em go to town.

Still, I suppose a few levels of fighter can't hurt if you *really* need that extra kick-ass potential for some reason.

Paladin's Lay on Hands is only usable once per day and is not as strong as the Cleric's Heal. In fact, I would argue that, at high levels, especially once HLAs come into play, that Mages are better healers than Paladins (just look at Wish and Summon (Fallen) Planetar, two of the best healing spells in the game, and remember that Project Image exists as well (try it with a Rod of Resurrection)).

Dual classing, if done early enough, does not cause you to lose top tier spells of your target class. Specifically, dual classing at level 9 will only cost you about one level in the long run (considering BG2 and its expansion), and dual classing earlier will cost you even less.

Cleric actually synergizes nicely with other class, thanks to the Draw Upon Holy Might spell. A Fighter/Cleric can use DUHM to get more Str and Con, allowing her to deal more damage in melee combat (and the Dex bonus can help with AC as well); getting your Str to 19 this way provides a huge bonus (who cares about exceptional Strength when you can get 19 Strength pretty easily?). For a Cleric/Thief, many Thief skills depend on Dex, and DUHM will boost that stat; casting DUHM will make her a better thief. Also, some thief skills can be used without breaking Sanctuary.

Cleric/Mage synergies don't really exist in BG1 (unless you are playing EE or a BG1-in-BG2 mod and manage to get ahold of a Minor Sequencer scroll). In BG2, however, one Minor Sequencer scroll and you can now instant-cast those slow Cleric spells like Bless and DUHM. This gets even better when you reach high levels and get better Sequencer and Contingency spells; that class really shines if you manage to get 6 million XP. Fighter/Cleric/Mage, while unable to get 9th level Mage spells even in ToB, can still put DUHM and other Cleric spells in sequencers for quick casting, cast a sequencer, and then be effective in melee, with Stoneskin to negate damage (especially useful once you're at the point where AC becomes useless), and Protection from Magic Weapons for better protection at higher levels.

Remember that having the Fighter class gives you extra attacks that you wouldn't otherwise get.

Actually, I would argue that the SSI games had problems even then. The Gold Box games were not fair to female characters (they had reduced Str caps and nothing to compensate); this sexism made the game less attractive to female players (I happened to read a contemporary review by a female gamer who didn't like Pool of Radiance, and that was one thing she didn't like about the game (especially since other games (Ultima, Bard's Tale 3, and Might and Magic) allowed female characters without any such handicaps. Fortunately, this rule was dropped in 2nd edition AD&D, and the non-Gold Box SSI games do not implement such a rule.

There's also the whole issue of racial level caps. The racial level caps were basically the designer's way of saying "demi-humans are useless at mid-high levels". This means that, while Pools of Darkness offers many interesting options for multiclassing demi-humans, they're all completely useless, as they are capped at lower levels than single class characters start at. (Have fun with a level 5 Half-Elf Cleric in a game designed for characters to grow to level 40!) It is a good thing that the Infinity Engine games (especially BG2; can you imagine Throne of Bhaal with racial level limits?) do not implement those limits, and I believe this was a completely intentional decision, along with not implementing stat-based spellcasting level limits and not implementing permanent stat loss from revival spells.

Also, from what I understand, Pool of Radiance made healing painful by only giving you one weak healing spell for the entire game and not having any effective shortcuts for healing (and resting heals almost nothing). Even Wizardry gave you slightly better healing spells at mid levels and MADI (equivalent to AD&D 2e/3e Heal) at higher levels. Ultima 3 has healing fountains, and Might and Magic heals you fully when you rest (and there's Power Cure and Divine Intervention).