Fighter/cleric.

Ranger appeal is the extra spells for a fighter class. If you have them from cleric, no reason for it.

In multiclass there’s not even a doubt for me. On dual class you may go for Stalker/cleric if you use clubs or quarterstaves for backstab (which is a waste of one of the few advantages a ranger has: 2 points in dual wielding proficiency naturally).

If slings could go grandmastery, i would say Archer/clerics to be awesome, but they can’t (still good even with 2 pips, since you’re still gaining bonus from +1 hit/dmg per 3 archer levels.

Conclusion: go Fighter/cleric.

I just read somewhere that someone did a 23 Archer/20 something Cleric and two shotted a dragon. I wonder how crazy it can get and how long it would take...

It doesn't make a great difference and it can be situational (party or solo, pont of the game, etc.).
I agree that probably F/C is more powerful, but if you like more to play a ranger, either for playing style or roleplaying reason, I would not change mind.

Originally posted by attiladafun:

I just read somewhere that someone did a 23 Archer/20 something Cleric and two shotted a dragon. I wonder how crazy it can get and how long it would take...

The point is, how many hours you need to struggle with a poor character in order to have these 2 seconds of glory?

Originally posted by Wicket W. Warrick:

It doesn't make a great difference and it can be situational (party or solo, pont of the game, etc.).
I agree that probably F/C is more powerful, but if you like more to play a ranger, either for playing style or roleplaying reason, I would not change mind.

Originally posted by attiladafun:

I just read somewhere that someone did a 23 Archer/20 something Cleric and two shotted a dragon. I wonder how crazy it can get and how long it would take...

The point is, how many hours you need to struggle with a poor character in order to have these 2 seconds of glory?

I know, right?
That's why I dont think its ever worth it to go dual unless its the two strongest classes of Barbarian into Mage.

Originally posted by Kamuizin:

Fighter/cleric.

Ranger appeal is the extra spells for a fighter class. If you have them from cleric, no reason for it.

In multiclass there’s not even a doubt for me. On dual class you may go for Stalker/cleric if you use clubs or quarterstaves for backstab (which is a waste of one of the few advantages a ranger has: 2 points in dual wielding proficiency naturally).

If slings could go grandmastery, i would say Archer/clerics to be awesome, but they can’t (still good even with 2 pips, since you’re still gaining bonus from +1 hit/dmg per 3 archer levels.

Conclusion: go Fighter/cleric.

Here's your answer. (Give him the "answer" icon, please?) It takes so long to get to those druid spells. I am not a fan of esoteric builds so that, in the final 50 minutes of ToB, you "can two-shot that dragon." Done right, this game has so much high-level cheese you might not even need one shot by then!

My philosophy is to build a character I will enjoy from Candlekeep (I always do the full saga) to Bhaal's Throne. People can play their own way because, hey, it's your game not mine. But suffering along with a sub-par character for 75-90% of the games just so you can be "Awesome Sauce" in the finale,,, OK, if that's fun for you. I'll give you an example:

Many, many players swear the multi-class fighter/mage is the ultimate, absolute most powerful PC you can have. And I can see it. But,... I am lazy about buffing. So for me this would be a pain in the butt build. "Oh, great, I get lower HP and only Proficiency in weapons and I need to cast a bunch of spells before every fight." Yawn! Not my play style. But others love it.

I have never been tempted to play a Ranger/Cleric, or even a Ranger>Cleric (much less Archer>Cleric. That two-shot is with a sling, you know?) It just takes too long to get to the good stuff so you can, eventually, have a cleric who casts insect swarm and entangle. Just take Jaheira along. She can cast those from the get-go. Fighter/Cleric does interest me (Dwarf!) And I am planning on Fighter (Berserker)>Cleric because I think that combo will stomp!!! I only wish you could multi/dual with Priest of Tempus. Now that would be a true warrior-priest!

What builds/ classes would you consider as viable from the start of BG 1? I'm playing a cavalier and ran through SoD and am the start of BG2 and find it quite enjoyable.

All single class or basic multiclass are viable, some more enjoyable than others.

Your cavalier is a pretty solid choice for BG2, with tons of demons and dragons:
/draconic enemies to play around.

If you want min max:

Fighter (kensai or berserker) 9 or 13 / mage;
Fighter (kensai or berserker) 9 or 13 / thief.

Other than that, anything is good. I’m not a fan of multi-class and my preferred dual class combos are:

Shadowdancer 13 / cleric
Swashbuckler 10 / fighter

On base classes, i really like monks (but they’re a slow start on Ad&d) and archers (just don’t dual it, it’s not worth).

Still, these are just examples of what i like. Good? Yes, best combo? I don’t know, probably not.

If you aren't going to undo Beamdog's fix, a multi Ranger/Cleric is just a multi Fighter/Cleric that takes more XP to level up. I know I'm glossing over a few differences, but they aren't going to make a real difference in the way the character plays as much as the Ranger XP table will, particularly with a full party.

If you're dual classing, then you're just comparing the Fighter's advanced weapon specialization to what the Ranger kits get; and in 7 to 13 levels they don't get anything that compares to 1/2 an attack per round, +2 to hit and +3 to damage. Particularly if you throw the Berserker kit's Rage into the mix. Archer's good, even Sling Archer is good because you can add your strength bonus to slings unlike bows, but it needs levels to build its bonuses up.

Dual classing barbarian means you have to be a barbarian for all of BG1 and is less versatile in the beginning for more power later. Cleric/ranger is good in BG1 to stealth solo with, but suffers xp lag in BG2.
I know fighter/cleric is more solid in the long run, but Im a fan of interesting class combos.

You can't dual class a Barbarian (not without EEKeeper). The other Fighter kits yes, but not Barb.

Originally posted by wendigo211:

You can't dual class a Barbarian (not without EEKeeper). The other Fighter kits yes, but not Barb.

Or CD Tweaks!

Originally posted by Wulfgar621:

What builds/ classes would you consider as viable from the start of BG 1? I'm playing a cavalier and ran through SoD and am the start of BG2 and find it quite enjoyable.

Interesting question. And on this board you will get (already have) a million suggestions, some very esoteric. And, since they usually come from people who have done it, obviously they are all viable. But with some of these you are focusing more on the build then the game. I know this sounds totally radical, but the point of gaming is to have FUN! For me, at least, having a PC you have to nursemaid through BG1, and maybe SoD, just so you can have a completely busted character in ToB is not my definition of fun. But others might disagree. This is why I have never started a mage in BG1: you cast your 3 spells and then it's sling time while the NPCs have all the fun. Boring. Sure, a 37th level Mage (any type) is functionally a demi-god by ToB. If they live long enough to reach Beregost!

This is why your better question is not which builds are viable (they all are), but which ones are less viable starting in BG1. Here is my list, which is sure to attract passionate disagreement from fans of ________.

Kensai: No armor, no ranged weapons. In BG2 they slice and dice like you cannot believe (and AC no longer matters in that game.) But in BG1? Can't stand in the front line long. Is Grand Mastery in throwing daggers your idea of fun??? Keeping them alive early is the challenge.

Monk: Same armor issues as Kensai, worse weapons skill. And here I will get criticism from Monk fans; as good as their abilities look around level 20 in BG2, they are still very weak. (Yeah, like a lich fails a saving throw to quivering palm. Sure.) And there is way to check this. In BG1/2 you can pick up Rasaad. He's not much good. And Balthazar is easily the weakest of the Five in ToB. (And here is a Pro Tip: Any special ability that has a saving throw is basically useless in ToB.)

Wizard Slayer: Just a fighter who can't use a lot of items in BG1. The spellcasters are not that tough in BG1 and your abilities are sort of low-level. It scales up a bit in BG2, but even the immunities are not as good as you can get in that game with gear they can't use. To me "No Gear = No Fun."

Shapeshifter: Without a fix (CD Tweaks) you don't even get the abilities promised in the description, even then,... Werewolf form is susceptible to magic weapons, which in BG1 includes Fire and Ice arrows. This guy is a pin cushion. Fine for taking out "dumb" enemies (no magic weapons), even big ones like Ogres. But hopeless in boss fights. And they don't get that much better in BG2. Eventually you are just an unarmored druid.

Jester: Confusion is a double-edged sword. The enemies could run or wander, or become berserk. As enemies get higher level, the saving throw makes their special ability a joke. By BG2 they are just the same as a regular bard. Why did you ever bother?

There are also builds that just don't do much in BG1, although they pop in BG2:

Undead Hunter: +3/+3 against Skeletons? Big deal. They do start to have more value in SoD and can rule in BG2.

Spellcasters: The spells are not that good low-level (and you don't have many to cast!) You can buff your cleric to be almost as good as a fighter. While the spell lasts! Mages should be in the rear, with the gear!

Cavalier: (I just ran one of these and loved it. Good choice!) You fight about 3 demons and no dragons in BG1. SoD and BG2 you will be awesome!

Thieves and Bards: Their abilities don't really gel until BG2.

Assassin: I am not sure they ever get as good as people think in BG2, but really nothing special in BG1. "Oh, look, I back-stabbed and poisoned a kobold!!!"

Note a trend here: There are a lot of great classes in BG2 that you don't really need in BG1, hence why many people prefer dual-classing. I have said it many times: BG1 is a combat heavy game. You can play & win with any class, but you will have more fun (action) if you can fight. (And, yes, there are plenty of esoteric builds that can fight.) Fighting never goes out of style, but in BG2 all classes (maybe not monk) are really overpowered. Especially because in BG2 you have so much cheese in terms of gear, scrolls, etc. It is no trick to make any character or class totally immune to magic, undead, fire, etc. (And simulucrum means you can do it indefinitely.) Imagine walking into an army of Beholders and just using them for target practice?

The real truth is this: BG1 is the harder game, provided you really understand what spells, gear, scrolls, potions, etc,, can do in BG2, My take is the designers went overboard in BG1 on combat encounters (and loads of random ones) where it's just easier to grab a bow and take them down. This is why, for my money, Archer is the absolute best BG1 class. But dual can give you the best of both worlds. Anomen is not in BG1, but imagine he was made 7th level fighter in that game. Pretty buff. But then in BG2 his cleric abilities are more valuable. Who needs a +3/+3 against undead when he can "Turn" them at such a high level that liches just explode on sight! And thieves, who are really crippled in BG1, may be the most powerful class of all by ToB (because Spike Traps are unbeatable; the ultimate cheese.)

Oh, there are some classes never meant for BG1 that can really nerf the game. Archer is number one. I actually am starting to like Swashbuckler for similar reasons. Inquisitor dispelling magic at 2X makes a lot of mage fights way easy. Even Totemic Druid, although watered down by Beamdog, has a nice edge with summons (which weaken in BG2.)

But here;s the bottom line: Any class can survive and win. Veteran players will often challenge themselves with a lousy class, lousy stats, and solo just to see if they can still beat the game on "Insane." Despite everything I just said above, I am thinking of trying the Dragon Disciple (which can't dual in or out) Because it sounds Fun!

This is correct. Ive played enough to set my own goals of fun. I've never played BG1 with an arcane spellcaster class. Neither companions too. There are some classes that do better in either BG1 or BG2 so I set my goal on the smallest viable party that can kill most enemies the fastest. Mage spellcasting takes too long in my view. Especially when elixirs exist.
I find mage killers and thieves essential tho. Then there is so much good gear to spread around.

I wanted to do something different on this run through. So I just started a new elven mage/thief and elected to go with whatever score came up on my first roll (no re-rolls) and no rearranging them either. As rolled the character started with 76 total. The lowest total score I've ever seen rolled is 75 so this one is is pretty much bottom of the heap.

13 strength
16 dexterity
10 constitution
16 intelligence
11 wisdom
10 charisma

I lucked out on dex and intel, I know the game factors in your class when it rolls but I have seen worse. The MC only has 5 hit points though so I'm having to be careful on my way to Nashkel.

I did run this character through the tutorial to pick up a couple hundred xp and a couple of free scrolls to write into my spellbook.

Im running both and the biggest problem so far is the cleric/ranger is failing every spell save so far whereas the dwarf fighter cleric never does. its annoying