Clerics weaker than Oracles?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I've read a couple messages on this board before registering, and most of them were adamant about a cleric being more powerful than an oracle, especially at higher levels.

People keep saying that flexibility beats concentration every time. However, I'm reading the cleric spell list and can't help but think that their spell selection is narrow enough for it not to matter.

Let's take a Life Oracle (since they're the one that look the most alike).

At level 20, his spell list would look like this:

Level 0: No matter
Level 1: Cure light, detect undead (automatic) + protection from evil, unbreakable heart, bless, murderous command, bane
Level 2: Cure moderate, lesser restore + Hold person, protection from evil (communal), remove paralysis, resist energy, surmount affliction
Level 3: Cure serious wounds, Neutralize poison + Bestow Curse, Prayer, Daylight, Remove Disease, any SoS you like
Level 4: Cure critical, restoration + AirWalk, Death Ward, Dismissal, Freedom of Movement
Level 5: Cure light mass, Breath of life + Break Enchantment, Spell Resistance, True Seeing, Plane Shift
Level 6: Cure mod mass, Heal + Antilife Shell, Wind Walk, Heroes Feast
Level 7: Cure serious mass, Greater Resto + Holy Word, Destruction, Regeneration
Level 8: Cure critical mass + Antimagic Field, Holy Aura, Discern Location
Level 9: True Resurrection, Heal Mass + Miracle and whatever 2 other spells you want.

This list is by no means perfect, but it pretty much covers everything a cleric could do (apart from Time Stop if the cleric has trickery as a domain).

In the meantime, your oracle has:
- More uses (and more powerful ones) of channeling, due to high charisma
- Free quickcasting of healing spells for two slots
- Much more spells per day than a cleric
- Much more flexibility in what spell to cast
- 20 rounds of elemental form (free immunities) and other goodnesses.
- Depending on his curse, he can be immune to exhaustion, or have blindsense, or other nifty boons.

Your cleric has:
- Better will save
- Some powerful spells if you chose your domains wisely

Of course, if the oracle is human, he can choose to use his preferred class boon to get more spells at any level except 9th.

So did I miss something or is the oracle better in almost every way than the cleric ?


The oracle is a better specialist than a cleric. The same cleric who memorized the spells you've listed above could switch to a battle cleric the next day and memorize damaging spells instead. Spells per level also matter less at higher levels because the cleric should have a way to keep up with scrolls or other resources. The oracle will always be a better specialist than a cleric. You have a specific idea in mind the oracle wins. He's better at healing, spell damage, or melee. But a cleric can switch hit between them changing his specialty from level to level or as the adventure needs. Don't get me wrong I love the Oracle and am not a big fan of clerics, but he cleric definitely has his place especially in smaller groups where you have less of an opportunity to specialize.


I know what your saying, and your right, this Oracle is a VERY good healer.

You can create other Oracles that do other jobs expertly as well.......but..........

As a cleric I can be a pretty good healer one day, a pretty good blaster the next, and a pretty good summoner the next.

I'm never going to be the best. But i'm going to be able to hold my own.

I like playing crafters, and as a cleric I get lots of spells to use as pre-requisites and can craft items such as wands and staffs which mean that even when I have configured my spell list to do one thing on a particular day I can back myself up with magic items to pick up another role.

So yes, If you have a particular character concept, then you can build an Oracle to do the job better than a cleric, but if you want to be more of a generalist, clerics are the best option. So which is the weaker? neither. The two are pretty well balanced.

Dark Archive

There's the fact that clerics get their spells a level early, there's the fact that prepared casters are more powerful than spontaneous casters, and there's the fact that a cleric gets to decide what he's doing each day, rather than being pigeon-holed into healing because he's a life oracle.

Just my opinion, and the oracle is a great class; better than a cleric though? I don't agree.


A nifty trick I learned about clerics is that you don't have to prepare all of your slots at the beginning of the day. You can leave some open and sipmly prepare certain spells that you'd need for a certain situation. It is really handy and something a lot of people don't know.

Unsure if other prepared casters can do it though...

Also as a cleric, you probably shouldn't prepare CLW spells since you can turn your spells into CLW anyway. Makes more room for more proactive spells like Shield of Faith, Bless, Bull's Strength, etc.

Shadow Lodge

For the most part, the Oracle is ususally better than the Cleric for almost all builds. They are much better focused in what is intended, and they have both more options and less restrictions. They are less dependant on stats, and honestly, the isn't that much point the the Cleric's versatility, as most casters pick the same spells on a daily basis except in those rare occasions that they know they are probably going to need something specifically.

But, that's what scrolls and wands are for. Also, the Oracle's high Cha opens a lot of doors, (besides the fact that their class abilities all work off one stat rather than 2+), like UMD opening up basically any spell in the game.


@Proftobe & Peterrco: I didn't think about the opportunity to switch roles. You're right, that's a huge benefit of playing a cleric.

However, isn't it also attribute-dependant ?
I agree that a controlling oracle won't be able to hold his own in combat, as a battle cleric would. But a battle cleric would probably have invested heavily in strength and melee feats, I suppose. So if your cleric has a very high wisdom and spellcasting feats, he won't be that good in melee, even with divine might and such. Whereas your cleric with high strength and melee feats will be a weaker controller.

Also, it would be pretty easy to tweak this list by adding summoning spells (it's only one per level, after all) and turn the life oracle into a great summoner ^^


Most clerics don't dump charisma or strength and UMD isn't a class skill for either so he's still winning as a generalist(your high cha vs the clerics 14 gives you a slight advantage, but eventually he catches up making the same skill checks that you easily make). Plus when something changes he can use those open(unmemorized) slots to pick up needed spells while all the oracle can hope is he picked up the right scroll in town.

Dark Archive

There's also the fact that only a few oracles get access to channel. Is an oracle of life a better healer than a generalist cleric? Probably. Is an oracle of flame a better healer than a generalist cleric? Probably not.

Shadow Lodge

The thing is, an Oracle of Life is a better healer than a Cleric focused on Healing. An Oracle of Battle is a better warpriest than a Cleric focused on battle. A Controller/Blaster/Etc. . . Oracle is better than a Focused Cleric at any of these, assuming that they are both built reasonably well.

Dark Archive

Yes, but the cleric makes up for it by being a better generalist. That oracle of flame? Meh, he can heal, but probably not great. The oracle of life? I guess he could go into combat and whack stuff, but chances are if the cleric knew he was going into combat that day he'd be better prepared.


There's also the fact that clerics don't get access to a spells known list. They get access to the entire spell list. This is significant as it means for every supplement added to the game that includes cleric spells, the better the cleric gets. More than that as a prepared spellcaster the cleric can leave a slot or two open and prepare slots on an as needed basis.

In this way all those situational spells become much better when dealt with in a context of "I can get it when I need it" rather than "I'm sorry but that's not on my spell's known list."

When you start talking about Domain powers versus mysteris it becomes a bit YMMV. Some mysteries are amazing, some are crap. Same with domains.

Quote:
The thing is, an Oracle of Life is a better healer than a Cleric focused on Healing. An Oracle of Battle is a better warpriest than a Cleric focused on battle. A Controller/Blaster/Etc. . . Oracle is better than a Focused Cleric at any of these, assuming that they are both built reasonably well.

Yes. And no.

Archetypes, and domain choices factor in quite a bit on this.

Objectively speaking an oracle of life is likely much better than a normal cleric of Healing and some other domain. But is he better at it than a Merciful Healer who can remove conditions with his channel energy? The merciful healer cleric can still cast quite a few good buffs and because of spontaneous casting his healing potential never falters due to spell choice.

Than you have guys like Evangelists who combine the best elements of the bard class with the best parts of the cleric class to make something that is wholly amazing. He doesn't heal better than an oracle of life. But that's not what you made him for. You're going to find it very hard indeed to build an oracle who can swift action bard music, standard action Blessing of Fervor, and move action channel energy to grant all his buddies a bonus to weapon damage. Yet this is something that an evangelist can do with but one feat choice.

There's a lot to both of these classes that I find the comparisons somewhat silly.

Besides, healing is a job best taken in the group by a wooden glowy stick.

Shadow Lodge

We can agree to disagree on just about all of that. The last line, though, I'm in complete accordance. :)


TarkXT wrote:


Than you have guys like Evangelists who combine the best elements of the bard class with the best parts of the cleric class to make something that is wholly amazing. He doesn't heal better than an oracle of life. But that's not what you made him for. You're going to find it very hard indeed to build an oracle who can swift action bard music, standard action Blessing of Fervor, and move action channel energy to grant all his buddies a bonus to weapon damage. Yet this is something that an evangelist can do with but one feat choice.

Actually, the Oracle could swift action HEAL, move action channel energy as the evangelist, and standard action Blessing of fervor :D


Grenouillebleue wrote:


Actually, the Oracle could swift action HEAL, move action channel energy as the evangelist, and standard action Blessing of fervor :D

So which would you rather have in round 1?

Dark Archive

I don't think the oracle makes a better evangelist. I don't think the oracle makes for a better generalist prepared for whatever cleric. The oracle is better at being an oracle and I don't understand why you're so up in arms about the cleric being better at being what the oracle is not.


Mergy wrote:
There's also the fact that only a few oracles get access to channel. Is an oracle of life a better healer than a generalist cleric? Probably. Is an oracle of flame a better healer than a generalist cleric? Probably not.

Unless I'm mistaken, only the Life Oracle get access to channel.

That's a pity, since it somewhat limits your choice of a mystery when you're the primary healer. Either your choose Life Oracle and you can use your spell slots for spell casting, or you choose any other mystery and you have to cast many healing spells throughout the day...

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The best healers don't cst many cure or remove spells, but all the other spells that prevent their party from taking the damage (or debuff) in the first place. So would still say that the Oracle, even not of Life) is a better healer than the generic, or not-specifically-focused-on-healing Cleric, too.

Dark Archive

Or you use a wand like most healers to prevent the wasting of spell slots.


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
The best healers don't cst many cure or remove spells, but all the other spells that prevent their party from taking the damage (or debuff) in the first place. So would still say that the Oracle, even not of Life) is a better healer than the generic, or not-specifically-focused-on-healing Cleric, too.
Mergy wrote:
Or you use a wand like most healers to prevent the wasting of spell slots.

I meant that channeling helps you heal:

- Without using slots
- As a move action
- All players at once

Of course, you have to take selective channeling.


Grenouillebleue wrote:


Of course, you have to take selective channeling.

No, no you don't. The only reason to grab selective channeling is if you want to blow actions in combat healing. Which is a bad use of an action in all but few situations.


TarkXT wrote:
Grenouillebleue wrote:


Of course, you have to take selective channeling.
No, no you don't. The only reason to grab selective channeling is if you want to blow actions in combat healing. Which is a bad use of an action in all but few situations.

You can channel as a move action, which means you don't blow actions.

If you DON'T take Selective Channeling and one of your mates is low HP for whatever reason, you'll have to spend a standard on them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grenouillebleue wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Grenouillebleue wrote:


Of course, you have to take selective channeling.
No, no you don't. The only reason to grab selective channeling is if you want to blow actions in combat healing. Which is a bad use of an action in all but few situations.

You can channel as a move action, which means you don't blow actions.

If you DON'T take Selective Channeling and one of your mates is low HP for whatever reason, you'll have to spend a standard on them.

Um, no?

Quick Channel just requires 5 ranks in knowledge religion and channel energy feature.

Selective Channeling lets you exclude people from it. Two different things.

And to go further if your mates are low on HP and you're past level 5? They should be trying to remove themselves from combat long enough for you to either dump a bigger heal on them or you should be endeavoring to make sure they don't get hurt at all. But this is all retread ground.

That's sort of the trick with channeling, it's simply not that great past level 5. Damage quickly outpaces its potential. That's why I tend to look at Alternate channeling as a means to improve it. I heal less damage, true, but at the same time I'm providing benefits that are completely separate from any damage healed.


I'm sorry, I thought I said in my first post that Quick Channel was mandatory. Of course, Selective Channeling has little interest without it. My mistake ;)

Also, it's not always easy to escape battle. There are countless monsters with reach, grappling or tripping abilities.

I agree that reducing damage is better than healing it, but you don't always have a choice. Most fights are made to be challenging, and this usually means some hp lost. If a battle ended without any threat to the PC, then our DM miscalculated.


Also selective channel is not that good in big parties because that usually means larger groups of enemies. If you have more than three enemies and you only have the points for 14 charisma then selective channel can be a waste.
If you only have a few enemies most of their attacks will go onto a few people so your channel may be healing what one to two people.

Channel is best used when multiple people are hurt.
Also if the gm runs it so that enemies do not die if they go to zero hp but are unconcious and dying then selective channel gets less useful as they can get back up.

Also if teh party rolls really well or you roll poorly with monsters an encounter can pass with no damage.


Grenouillebleue wrote:


In the meantime, your oracle has:

- Free quickcasting of healing spells for two slots

Where is this in the rulebook?


Where's the Weed? wrote:
Grenouillebleue wrote:


In the meantime, your oracle has:

- Free quickcasting of healing spells for two slots

Where is this in the rulebook?

An option for both battle oracle and life oracle:

Combat Healer (Su): Whenever you cast a cure spell (a spell with “cure” in its name), you can cast it as a swift action, as if using the Quicken Spell feat, by expending two spell slots. This does not increase the level of the spell. You can use this ability once per day at 7th level and one additional time per day for every four levels beyond 7th. You must be at least 7th level to select this revelation.


Grenouillebleue wrote:

I'm sorry, I thought I said in my first post that Quick Channel was mandatory. Of course, Selective Channeling has little interest without it. My mistake ;)

Also, it's not always easy to escape battle. There are countless monsters with reach, grappling or tripping abilities.

I agree that reducing damage is better than healing it, but you don't always have a choice. Most fights are made to be challenging, and this usually means some hp lost. If a battle ended without any threat to the PC, then our DM miscalculated.

+1 to this :-)

My DM won't just let us retreat because someone is low on hp because of that last critical hit from the hill giant. And the two others threatening that one person in a way that withdraw is not possible *will* kill him with the next AoO hit when he moves. Healing that person, even just a little, to give an extra buffer hp so he can retreat and we can regroup is absolutely crucial to avoid extreme character turnover.

And the CLW wand aka stick of wonders is not always the best option after fights if you have channels left and you would have to expend almost all the charges on curing your party and no magic shop is nearby (e.g. because you are in the wilderness).

Shadow Lodge

And your Cleric/Oracle isn't casting Command on the notoriously low Will Save giant because?. . . :)

That's the point we made earlier, it's better to keep the party from taking damage, (Command both makes the target waste their next action and give your 3 surrounding party members an AoO as it flee's, and is essentually a free CLW on to of that (for all damage you just didn't have to heal).


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

And your Cleric/Oracle isn't casting Command on the notoriously low Will Save giant because?. . . :)

That's the point we made earlier, it's better to keep the party from taking damage, (Command both makes the target waste their next action and give your 3 surrounding party members an AoO as it flee's, and is essentually a free CLW on to of that (for all damage you just didn't have to heal).

First of all, your cleric might not be high enough and not have high enough DCs to affect all THREE hill giants threatening that character reliably. However, he could reliably buff his ally.

Also, sometimes your cleric has not prepared command. Or he does not know if it will work on giants because he has never encountered them before, and the last encounter with undead did not work out well this way.

As soon as you involve the other side, all bets are off. Keep it on your side, you can plan for a maximum effect. And that's what healing - and buffing - does :-)

Shadow Lodge

Quote:
Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potentially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and easily world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.

Though, I suppose, whether or not one will notice this difference at a table will be dependent upon the players that are participating and how the style in which the game is run.

Shadow Lodge

Sangalor wrote:

First of all, your cleric might not be high enough and not have high enough DCs to affect all THREE hill giants threatening that character reliably. However, he could reliably buff his ally.

Also, sometimes your cleric has not prepared command. Or he does not know if it will work on giants because he has never encountered them before, and the last encounter with undead did not work out well this way.

As soon as you involve the other side, all bets are off. Keep it on your side, you can plan for a maximum effect. And that's what healing - and buffing - does :-)

Wait, what? I don't get what you mean, involve the other side? Buffing an ally (not healing) would be another eample of what a good healer does. Healing is usually the absolute worst idea that they can do, only not bad when A.) the rest of the party doesn't have any means to heal otherwise & no one else has the ability to draw and use a wand, and B.) they are literally that close to death (being out of the fight).

PS, a 1st level Cleric/Oracle is high enough level to cast Command, and should know generally what it will work on. It is a 1 target only spell, (See Command Greater), but you also didn't mention that there are 3 giants, meaning you are probably high enough level to cast that and your Channeling has topped out a few levels ago. I'm trying to help, not being snarky here.

The overall point I was looking at, though, is that the Oracle will have DC's needed for this sort of thing, while the Cleric may or may not. Command is one of the best spells for 1st level, and stays fairly good throughout the game. It is one spell that has a lot of versatility, so the whole idea that Clerics bring options and Oracles bring power and focus isn't really that accurate.


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Sangalor wrote:

First of all, your cleric might not be high enough and not have high enough DCs to affect all THREE hill giants threatening that character reliably. However, he could reliably buff his ally.

Also, sometimes your cleric has not prepared command. Or he does not know if it will work on giants because he has never encountered them before, and the last encounter with undead did not work out well this way.

As soon as you involve the other side, all bets are off. Keep it on your side, you can plan for a maximum effect. And that's what healing - and buffing - does :-)

Wait, what? I don't get what you mean, involve the other side? Buffing an ally (not healing) would be another eample of what a good healer does. Healing is usually the absolute worst idea that they can do, only not bad when A.) the rest of the party doesn't have any means to heal otherwise & no one else has the ability to draw and use a wand, and B.) they are literally that close to death (being out of the fight).

PS, a 1st level Cleric/Oracle is high enough level to cast Command, and should know generally what it will work on. It is a 1 target only spell, (See Command Greater), but you also didn't mention that there are 3 giants, meaning you are probably high enough level to cast that and your Channeling has topped out a few levels ago. I'm trying to help, not being snarky here.

The overall point I was looking at, though, is that the Oracle will have DC's needed for this sort of thing, while the Cleric may or may not. Command is one of the best spells for 1st level, and stays fairly good throughout the game. It is one spell that has a lot of versatility, so the whole idea that Clerics bring options and Oracles bring power and focus isn't really that accurate.

I did mention multiple threatening opponents. Make it three hill giants, 5 goblins, ten human archers up next turn, I do not care and it does not matter here.

By "other side" I meant those giants: Command is NOT guaranteed to work. And no, you will NOT know in our games if this should work in general unless you pass your knowledge check. Last session, three people rolled no higher than 5 in 5 attempts... :-(
Anyway, anything that requires the other side to fail a save is really *bad* if your buddy depends on the next hit not killing him. IMO you should choose a tactic that is guaranteed to work in the first place and probably save your ally.

The entire point I was making is that a "healbot" is not reduced to only casting cure spells or the like. He can also buff as well and even fight, just his typical spell selection, his equipment and feats will be optimized for healing. He can still contribute meaningfully by preventing character deaths and turning fights into wins this way :-)


I think the confusion here is that you're not describing a "healbot" you're describing a "support caster".

No, it's not semantics. It's terminology. A healbot is a character I have stapled to my behind to artificially boost my HP. A support caster is something else.


I think the confusion here is that you're not describing a "healbot" you're describing a "support caster".

No, it's not semantics. It's terminology. A healbot is a character I have stapled to my behind to artificially boost my HP. A support caster is something else.

Shadow Lodge

I took you saying "and two other's threatening" to mean 2 other allies threatening the one Giant, who because of it's reach, they can not use the WIthdraw action.

I'm not sure that you would need a Know check to know if Giants are immune to Command the same way you wouldn't to know if Elves are immune to Command. (It should be one of those I take 10 and need to beat a DC 10 common sense rolls, but that's not really the point.) I really don't see why your getting bent out of shape. A CLW spell requires close contact, and is going to leave the healbot (what Tark said) vulnerable, and has even more chance to fail (rolling min HP) whereas the buff will at least keep going.

@ Tark, I'm not sure who you where directing that at, but you are correct. I am suggesting that a support caster is the best option to fill the healing role, (though not at all the Healbot, which fits the role the worst, in my experience).


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

I took you saying "and two other's threatening" to mean 2 other allies threatening the one Giant, who because of it's reach, they can not use the WIthdraw action.

I'm not sure that you would need a Know check to know if Giants are immune to Command the same way you wouldn't to know if Elves are immune to Command. (It should be one of those I take 10 and need to beat a DC 10 common sense rolls, but that's not really the point.) I really don't see why your getting bent out of shape. A CLW spell requires close contact, and is going to leave the healbot (what Tark said) vulnerable, and has even more chance to fail (rolling min HP) whereas the buff will at least keep going.

The difference between heals and SoS/D in this case is just whether your GM is playing hardcore or not. Because a heal cannot fail (yes, min HP can happen, but that's still something - at level 7, you either heal 4d6 through channeling or 3d8+7 through cure serious). A "command" can.

Btw, it's language-dependant. Hope you took classes in Giant cuz it won't work if you didn't. And sadly, most players rather learn celestial, abyssal or whatever than the simple giant tongue.

But ok. Let's assume for a moment there's just one hill giant, and you speak his tongue. He has a low will save (+3).

You're a level 7 oracle and cast command. It's a level 1 spell and we can assume you have 20 Cha so that's DC 16. This means he succeeds on a 13+.

That's 40% chance to see your fighter die, crushed to a pulp, because he resisted. Are you willing to take that chance ? Your buddy maybe isn't.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TarkXT wrote:
Grenouillebleue wrote:


Of course, you have to take selective channeling.
No, no you don't. The only reason to grab selective channeling is if you want to blow actions in combat healing. Which is a bad use of an action in all but few situations.

It's funny on how those "few situations" keep coming up. And how often that these "bad uses" of an action turn the tables Or keep a whole group up that one extra round.


TarkXT wrote:

I think the confusion here is that you're not describing a "healbot" you're describing a "support caster".

No, it's not semantics. It's terminology. A healbot is a character I have stapled to my behind to artificially boost my HP. A support caster is something else.

Maybe it would be better to use a different term than healbot. I prefer the term full healer, which to me means a full divine spellcaster who gets all of the important healing spells at the normal level.


This is nearly identical to the 'discussion' on whether sorc or wizards are more powerful. What it basically boils down to is:

IF you often have information and opportunity to tailor your spell choices for what you are likely to need, then the prepared caster is probably a bit more powerful.

If you do NOT have the opprotunity, information, or inclination to tailor your spell list, then the spontaneous caster is probably a bit more powerful.


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

This is nearly identical to the 'discussion' on whether sorc or wizards are more powerful. What it basically boils down to is:

IF you often have information and opportunity to tailor your spell choices for what you are likely to need, then the prepared caster is probably a bit more powerful.

If you do NOT have the opprotunity, information, or inclination to tailor your spell list, then the spontaneous caster is probably a bit more powerful.

Nearly identical albeit different in enough ways to warrant a discussion on its own. In comparison to the sorcerer, the oracle has free cure spells every level and a narrower selection of spells to choose from.

This makes me think that sorcerer < wizard, but oracle > cleric.

That's just me, though.


Having seen both played the Cleric appears to be more powerful. But I've only seen a couple Oracle Mysteries in play. Battle and Nature. I did make up a Oracle of Bone though that I'd like to try, it looks like it might be more powerful at necromancy than the cleric.


Grenouillebleue wrote:

...Nearly identical albeit different in enough ways to warrant a discussion on its own. In comparison to the sorcerer, the oracle has free cure spells every level and a narrower selection of spells to choose from.

This makes me think that sorcerer < wizard, but oracle > cleric.

That's just me, though.

Remember though that the cleric has all his spells, not just what few he's managed to get into his spell book.

Having said that; I still say it is so GM, campaign, and player dependant to make a meaningful comparison.

My current GM tends to not give out much information on what will be needed ahead of time. Our current campaign gives very little time to rememorize or fillin slots left empty. In either of these situations a spontaneous caster of either type will tend to perform much better than a prepared caster. With both together a prepared caster is at a real disadvantage. (I'm running a wizard anyway for some odd reason.)

If you have a GM that does allow you to learn alot about what to expect. If your campaign gives the opportunity to specifically tailor your spell list. Why then a prepared caster has a tremendeous advantage.

We have a player that will almost always pick exactly the same spell even if everyone tells him it is not a good choice in this situation. (I suspect it is largely because he doesn't know the books well enough to understand all the other spell choices.) He should definitely play a spontaneous caster.

If you are a player that pours over the books, knows all the spells, and likes tweaking your spell list each day. Then you have an excellent chance of kicking magical tush with a prepared caster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Grenouillebleue wrote:


Of course, you have to take selective channeling.
No, no you don't. The only reason to grab selective channeling is if you want to blow actions in combat healing. Which is a bad use of an action in all but few situations.
It's funny on how those "few situations" keep coming up. And how often that these "bad uses" of an action turn the tables Or keep a whole group up that one extra round.

If it comes up often it may be time to reevaluate your groups primary strategies.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TarkXT wrote:
LazarX wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Grenouillebleue wrote:


Of course, you have to take selective channeling.
No, no you don't. The only reason to grab selective channeling is if you want to blow actions in combat healing. Which is a bad use of an action in all but few situations.
It's funny on how those "few situations" keep coming up. And how often that these "bad uses" of an action turn the tables Or keep a whole group up that one extra round.
If it comes up often it may be time to reevaluate your groups primary strategies.

Our primary strategies generally revolve around the twin goals of taking down the opposition and keeping ourselves alive while doing so. Generally it's worked pretty well so far. These armchair "no healing while in battle" strategies fail to take into account damage spikes and the fact that channeling allows mass healing at far lower levels than it used to require without using spell slots. I suspect that the aversion towards healing in general is that it's seen as a less "manly" activity than kicking someone's face in.


One thing to note about this discussion compared to the sorc vs wiz debate is that oracles get many more spells per level and earlier than sorcs vs clerics having their entire class spell list all the time without a spell book.

Also the cleric and oracle class abilities are a key part in the comparison, depending on the ROLE your aiming for one can be wildly better than the other.

The most important facet of the discussion on cleric vs oracles should probably be the fortitude save as this is the biggest and most glaring difference between the two classes as it is a weakness that the sorc does not share when compared to wizards.

All in all i personally think an oracle makes a better support buffer/healer(life) with the misfortune reroll ability and quite possibly a better debuffer depending on the mystery selected (heavens is quite strong if your not worried about undead). The battle or metal oracle is probably a better bruiser than a cleric.

I think a cleric makes a better all round caster and is probably the better of the two at blaster casting if you optimise to the upper end of the spectrum. While a cleric will never be better than an oracle at its focused specialisation (like life healing or battle bruiser) it can be almost as good with the correct preperation and that kind of flexibility can often be very powerful on full caster classes like the cleric.

Overall i would rate the cleric as the more powerful of the two because the flexibility it offers allows it to be almost as powerful as a specialised oracle in many more situations and roles than the oracle could be provided it has the time to prepare.


If I know I'm going to be the one doing the bulk of the healing in the party, I'd rather play a Cleric than an Oracle. A Life Oracle is arguably a "better" healer than a Cleric, at the cost of being something of a one-trick pony. Other Oracles can be just as good, if not better, at healing than a Cleric, but they have to use their spell slots to do so. The way I play my own Cleric (of Gozreh, currently level 6, almost level 7, Weather and Air (Cloud) domains- so much lightning, it makes me happy), most of my healing comes from channeling. I'd much rather do that than drop spells for heals, thus freeing up my spell slots for other things. Oracles (mostly) don't get channeling, so if a heal is needed, it's at the cost of something else.

(In every game I've ever played in, healing was necessary, including in-combat healing. What the eff are you guys (or your DMs) doing differently that makes healing such a sub-par choice?)


Fionnabhair wrote:
...(In every game I've ever played in, healing was necessary, including in-combat healing. What the eff are you guys (or your DMs) doing differently that makes healing such a sub-par choice?)

Not sure, but I think some of it is due to glass-cannon builds. Rather than try to keep only one of the glass-cannons alive. It is better to add another glass-cannon to the fight and take out the opposition before any of the glass-cannons take significant damage. I believe that is the theory anyway. It works alot of the time. If it doesn't work, you can end up with a TPK pretty quick.

But it is fairly campaign, GM, and group dependant. If you are fighting tactically stupid enemies, your GM does not play the opps at intelligent, You can often ambush the bad guys, you have intel on what you are going up against, can purchase things like wands of CLW, and/or your groups work together well; then it mostly succeeds.

Most of our enemies are intelligent and played that way. Our GM is relatively stingy on what can be found out about the opps ahead of time. Healing items have not been very available for purchase. Our group is hmm... let's say 'hit-or-miss' on how well we work together. Healing is essential. We have been trying to make a go of it with-out a healer other than a melee paladin. It has been rough enough that one of us will probably switch characters in the near future.

Liberty's Edge

If you compare oracle at 20 and cleric at 20, oracle's very competitive, no doubt about it. If you compare them at 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 they're much less so. Also, cleric has better fortitude and will saves than an oracle, that can't be over looked, failed saves of either type kill characters. A cleric also has the versatility of knowing their entire list (amazing with scribe scroll).

And Fionnabhair, no one says that in-combat healing isn't sometimes a must have. Its just better if it isn't a must have. Furthermore, healing doesn't keep up with damage, a level 20 cleric can heal a single target for what, 150 hp? A decently built barbarian will deal far more than that in a single round.


ShadowcatX wrote:
...Furthermore, healing doesn't keep up with damage, a level 20 cleric can heal a single target for what, 150 hp? A decently built barbarian will deal far more than that in a single round.

Almost correct: quicken spell, spell perfection: heal, possibly magical lineage: heal will easily bring you to 300 hp per round for one target for two level 6 spells. With a rod of quicken you can do that without the feats.

And with mass heal you get 20*250=5000hp heal per round, 10000 with a greater rod of quicken. Fairly expensive but universally usable.

So if you *want* to, you heals *can* keep up :-)

Not to continue the arguments from another thread, just making sure it's not overlooked :-)

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Clerics weaker than Oracles? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.