If you don't like clerics you can just not play them. Let's list a few nice cleric spells over 6th level just for argument's sake.
I'm playing one right now. :)
Never said that I don't like them. I just said that their spell selection over 6th level is weak.
Weather domain cleric - Control weather + control winds
Animal domain cleric - share spells, anti-magic field, have your anaconda wrap up the enemy wizard in an amf or share righteous might/divine power with your friendly neighborhood dire lion
Spellcasting focus cleric - heightened sanctuary
good groups - Holy word +bead of karma
These are a little too situational since 90%+ won't have the proper domains, feats or party alignment to pull these off. Besides, I just said spells over 6th level. Sanctuary is still a spell that every 1st level cleric has.
anyone you don't want to touch you - repulsion
resurrection/true resurrection - no explanation necessary I hope
summon monster 7-9
dimension lock
firestorm
greater planar ally
greater spell immunity
astral projection
energy drain
etherealness
gate
implosion
miracle - congratulations you're now a level 15 wizard too
other spells in this range can be very useful situationally not to mention your domain spells-powers
Thanks for proving my point. The most powerful spells the cleric gets and this is as good as it gets? Okay, I'll give you back 9th level spells. They're not too bad. The 7th and 8th level spells are not very good especially compared to other casters of the same level.
Side Note: a side note,spells like wish, limited wish, miracle i strictly control as a DM i WOULD never allow a cleric to use a spell like that to simulate an arcane spell. Just like i'd ever allow an arcane caster to use a similar spell to simulate a divine spell. Why? because thats not your spell type no reason to allow you to use spell to throw a fireball or heal(as a wizard). If its something specific like need that spell to kill the uber bad guy maybe then... but yea as a DM do need to control uber spells like wish and miracle.just my 2 cents.
yeah I got a big problem with this in general.
The spell specifically states that it can do this. It's in the description as being an effect the spell can do. I always allow anyone to use the limited wish, wish or miracle for the effects that are specifically allowed by the spell description... anything past that is up to me and how I feel about the request, but up until that point I go by what the spell allows...
After all if I'm going to let the PC's get to the point where they can cast 9th level spells, I should as a DM be able to handle them doing what those spells are supposed to do without resorting to "No you can't do that I don't care."
Using wish or miracle to simulate other arcane or divine spells is hardly a game breaking usage of those spells. For the most part it's only ever going to be used as "Oh crap I should've memorized that spell" or "Oh crap the cleric just got slaughtered I better simulate raise dead, etc".
The cost of the spell simply precludes using it routinely, indeed imc I almost never see wish or miracle memorized.
Using core spells only the cleric list does pale in comparison to the arcane list. There simply is a huge number of spells in the arcane spell list that simply isn't replicated in the cleric list (baring domain spells). That's not to say that several spells aren't worthwhile. Implosion for instance is a very nice magekiller spell.
Pathfinder fixed a bunch of the obvious power moves clerics could get by with (righteous might got nerfed quite a bit) but if you allow 3.x material like complete divine the cleric is definitely still an incredible powerhouse (divine metamagic is clearly an overpowered feat). Spell Compendium also expands the amount of power that the cleric has.
Personally I'd like to see the cleric split into 2 classes (white mage and holy templar) the white mage would have full casting but would have crappy armor weapons whereas the holy templar would have 3/4 BAB and half casting. I think you could supplement the might of the white mage through better spell access/additional spells rather than maintain the divine fighter + awesome spellcaster.
|
yeah I got a big problem with this in general.
Side Note: a side note,spells like wish, limited wish, miracle i strictly control as a DM i WOULD never allow a cleric to use a spell like that to simulate an arcane spell. Just like i'd ever allow an arcane caster to use a similar spell to simulate a divine spell. Why? because thats not your spell type no reason to allow you to use spell to throw a fireball or heal(as a wizard). If its something specific like need that spell to kill the uber bad guy maybe then... but yea as a DM do need to control uber spells like wish and miracle.just my 2 cents.
I agree. Using Miracle to cast Fireball (which some Clerics can actually cast now, by the way), :) , is still a Divine, Cleric Spell. They are not using a differen type of magic or actually becoming a Wizard for that spell.
They are requesting that the universe, a deity, an angel/demon, etc . . . is making this happen on your behalf. Not trying to be rude, but that is just a terrible GM call. Your job as a DM is not to "stricktly control" the Player's characters, but especially not when the rules specifically allow for something you say no to. Now, I could understand if you are playing in a specific setting that includes setting related rules against this, (for example, in Dragonlance all healing magic is graned y the deities, so Bard's must have a patron deity in order to cast Cure Light Wounds). That is a different story, but I doubt this is the case, here.
|
|
I still hold that the Cleric and Divine Metamagic are not broken or over-powered. They, like every other aspect of the game, can be combined with this or that and become over-powered, but unlike a lot of those things, this was not a common issue.
I think that the majority of the problem was that a lot of fighter types didn't know how to play their class well enough and blamed the caster. It also has to do with the GM's not running appropriate daily encounters. If there is one or two threatening fights a day, Casters are overpowered. If you have 4 or 5 threatening fights a day, Casters take a large step back on the class power scale. More than that, and casters start to fall behind a great deal as their useul abilities are spent.
All good points Beckett, especially the part about encounters.
I still don't see Clerics as being overpowered, and I am yet to see the Cleric build that demonstrates how they are OP so I can revise my opinion.
I look forward to opposing views proffering up a stat block for our consideration per my previous post.
|
|
All good points Beckett, especially the part about encounters.
I still don't see Clerics as being overpowered, and I am yet to see the Cleric build that demonstrates how they are OP so I can revise my opinion.
I look forward to opposing views proffering up a stat block for our consideration per my previous post.
It is one of "those" stories, you know, a friend of a friend. In this case a copy/paste of a copy/paste from a powergamer forum, . . .
I'm sure it happens, bu I've never seen it either. Well, not in a realistic sense.
|
Your opinion of the cleric being overpowered or not depends on if you think they have a good spell list or not...same deal with the druid. Now in 3.5, yes they did. With the splat books, the cleric were even a bit better then the wizards...and druids blew everyone away. Kelpstrand?!? A targetable black tentacle with higher rolls needed to not get grappled as a 2nd level druid spell...yeah...basically there were some developers at wizards who had some favorites and it shows. The conjuration school was another such fiasco.
As far as PF core goes...yeah the cleric spell list got a nerf stick...but so did the wizards. The cleric is 2nd best caster, 4th best martial. The druid is 3rd best caster and 5th best martial. The wizard is best caster and worst martial. The bard is dead smack middle. All the other classes end up either worse then the bard in combat or casting except the druid and cleric...that makes both over powered in my book.
It is one of "those" stories, you know, a friend of a friend. In this case a copy/paste of a copy/paste from a powergamer forum, . . .
I played a totally overpowered/broken cleric back in the day. It was 3.0 though so it wasn't like he was anything special. He wasn't even optimized as he was one of my first 3E characters and we only had the core rulebooks to work with at the time.
Harm could take anything down (to 1d4 HP) as long as you could get past their spell resistance. That spell alone broke the Cleric.
yeah I got a big problem with this in general.
Side Note: a side note,spells like wish, limited wish, miracle i strictly control as a DM i WOULD never allow a cleric to use a spell like that to simulate an arcane spell. Just like i'd ever allow an arcane caster to use a similar spell to simulate a divine spell. Why? because thats not your spell type no reason to allow you to use spell to throw a fireball or heal(as a wizard). If its something specific like need that spell to kill the uber bad guy maybe then... but yea as a DM do need to control uber spells like wish and miracle.just my 2 cents.
I agree. Using Miracle to cast Fireball (which some Clerics can actually cast now, by the way), :) , is still a Divine, Cleric Spell. They are not using a differen type of magic or actually becoming a Wizard for that spell.
They are requesting that the universe, a deity, an angel/demon, etc . . . is making this happen on your behalf. Not trying to be rude, but that is just a terrible GM call. Your job as a DM is not to "stricktly control" the Player's characters, but especially not when the rules specifically allow for something you say no to. Now, I could understand if you are playing in a specific setting that includes setting related rules against this, (for example, in Dragonlance all healing magic is graned y the deities, so Bard's must have a patron deity in order to cast Cure Light Wounds). That is a different story, but I doubt this is the case, here.
your missing the point actually, not that a clerics deity couldn't give them that power its that now you have a cleric can cast both divine and arcane spells as he pleases. Why bring a wizard now? your cleric can cast all major divine spells and vice versa, SO now using limited wish or wish a wizard or sorc can now effectively cast cure or raise dead so sort of defeats idea of being a wizard or cleric. In my campaigns if your a wizard YOU use arcane spells and dont tred on divine spell list(are rare exceptions) and vice versa its not a bad GM call its a choice in keeping wizard and cleric seperate classes with out treding in each others domain. domain class abilities are exceptions of course. Can say what you like but, not about to let my wizards or sorcs start healing or bring dead back to life, and i'm not about to let my cleric suddenly cast mordinkens(know i'm spelling that wrong) disjunction out of the blue.
in end MUST be a separation between arcane and divine and these spells blur that line to much for my tastes. Thus no i won't allow it, and if players dont like it well find a new DM my game my rules... are never bad GM choices, just players cant take idea that DM can change the rules. Most players complain of these rules do so because now cant abuse the rule, like i said are exceptions using it as a last ditch effort to kill certain enemies HAS to be used is fine, but using wish(not i'd ever give my players wish) to cast raise dead or miracle to use disjunction just not gonna allow that. It has to be to move plot or beat certain enemy, MAYBE to raise a cleric died but thats it.
you don't have to agree with me... because i don't care if you agree or not thats beauty of having an opinion ^,^
|
|
your missing the point actually, not that a clerics deity couldn't give them that power its that now you have a cleric can cast both divine and arcane spells as he pleases. Why bring a wizard now? your cleric can cast all major divine spells and vice versa, SO now using limited wish or wish a wizard or sorc can now effectively cast cure or raise dead so sort of defeats idea of being a wizard or cleric. In my campaigns if your a wizard YOU use arcane spells and...
A cleric can only cast arcane spells as he pleases for however many 9th level divine spell slots he has available. A wizard could only cast as many divine spells as he had 7th level and up arcane slots, and would still be as limited at to the level he could cast, 7th level or lower. Trading a 9th level spell for a 7th level is a situational benefit in any event. The reason you bring a wizard or cleric when you have the other is that you're going to need more than that one spell at times, even if all you do is prepare wishes and miracles. And for clerics, you're actually asking your god to pull the mojo for it. Ask for too many miracles and you might not get any at all.
I just feel that if you let your players get to that level of power, you should let them enjoy it. The rules enforce the separation of arcane and divine for the first 15 levels. If you don't want that line crossed, you can stay in that range and never worry about it.
That being said, I can accept the DM declaring 'your god will not allow such spells', if not 'wish isn't powerful enough to repicate those spells'. But that is something that should be right out in the open before the game starts. I'd be upset if my GM waited to tell me 'I know the book says you can but I don't like it' when I was trying to cast the spell.
I refuse to believe that clerics are broken or op. i've played a pathfinder core cleric for almost a year now and am almost lvl 10. (sloooow progression /wrists) one day i decided to say F it, everyone had healing potions, i was gonna go on the offensive. so i prepared spells like bull str, righteous might, divine power, anything and anything to make me a contender. here was the experience i had
first encounter, as part of a trial 2 large earth elementals and 1 huge EE rise from the floor in front of us. all the dps has imp init and good dex scores, so i tend to go last. turn 1, i cast righteous might. (they all got their charges and hit).
round 2, they drop the first EE (have 6 pure dps in party) among the dps 1 guy looks bad, maybe half hp, and one looks awful, about 1/4 hp left. so round 2 i cast divine power!!!
round 3, they ask me to heal them... and swarm the other large EE. i pop a channel energy since 4 of em look pretty beat up. i do get up to the 2nd EE by now at least.
round 4, they down EE2 and move on huge EE. i charge and with my new size i reach over them and strike. MY FIRST HIT OF ENCOUNTER.
a few rounds later i get to attack twice more, and have to heal once more. the dmg i did was far less then any of them
next example. my cleric is a sun/fire domain and therefore have a good amount of fire domain spells to choose from. we encounter some major undead and i shine. kickin butt and taking names. i cast fire wall around party cutting off the waves attacking us. and the wraiths float over/ under wall and own a couple ppl. stuck using the lesser restorations i was lucky enough to prepare. so BBEG (big bad evil guy) pops up, flies over wall, and has gaze attacks, is out of reach of everyone and only dies due to a game mechanic where in a party member surrenders himself to a chaotic lightning demon and almost toasts party.
against undead, we do well, others, not so much. the issue with self buffs is in most cases u don't buff b4 u open every door, they don't last that long. so u are stuck using ur first X rounds buffing. by then the fun is over. i sure as hell don't feel OP
I still hold that the Cleric and Divine Metamagic are not broken or over-powered. They, like every other aspect of the game, can be combined with this or that and become over-powered, but unlike a lot of those things, this was not a common issue.
I think that the majority of the problem was that a lot of fighter types didn't know how to play their class well enough and blamed the caster. It also has to do with the GM's not running appropriate daily encounters. If there is one or two threatening fights a day, Casters are overpowered. If you have 4 or 5 threatening fights a day, Casters take a large step back on the class power scale. More than that, and casters start to fall behind a great deal as their useul abilities are spent.
I would generally agree that Divine Metamagic wasn't broken by itself. The problem in 3.5 was:
1. Persistant Spell. Making spells that are supposed to last for rounds or minutes last 24 hours WAS broken.2. Channel abilities were horrible. This is why Divine Metamagic was so great, because 95% of the time your turning attempts were useless. Unless you knew for certain that you were facing undead, you were better off using your turn attempts to boost your spells via DM. Even then, against undead with any kind of turning resistance, turning was still pretty weak. This made Divine Metamagic almost a must have for clerics. In PF, channeling is so much more useful that an ability like Divine Metamagic would not be nearly as useful.
3. Prayer Bead of Karma. I had almost forgotten about this item. Use it while buffing for a +4 to your caster level for 10 minutes. When combined with persistant spell, and it becomes even more broken. Your buffs were basically at +4 CL for the entire day. That is an additional +1 or +2 from a lot of the common cleric buffing spells. This also helped protect you from dispel magic as well.
Basically it was 1 broken ability combined with 2 other abilities that made it even more broken.
I refuse to believe that clerics are broken or op. i've played a pathfinder core cleric for almost a year now and am almost lvl 10. (sloooow progression /wrists) one day i decided to say F it, everyone had healing potions, i was gonna go on the offensive. so i prepared spells like bull str, righteous might, divine power, anything and anything to make me a contender. here was the experience i had
first encounter, as part of a trial 2 large earth elementals and 1 huge EE rise from the floor in front of us. all the dps has imp init and good dex scores, so i tend to go last. turn 1, i cast righteous might. (they all got their charges and hit).
round 2, they drop the first EE (have 6 pure dps in party) among the dps 1 guy looks bad, maybe half hp, and one looks awful, about 1/4 hp left. so round 2 i cast divine power!!!
round 3, they ask me to heal them... and swarm the other large EE. i pop a channel energy since 4 of em look pretty beat up. i do get up to the 2nd EE by now at least.
round 4, they down EE2 and move on huge EE. i charge and with my new size i reach over them and strike. MY FIRST HIT OF ENCOUNTER.
a few rounds later i get to attack twice more, and have to heal once more. the dmg i did was far less then any of them
next example. my cleric is a sun/fire domain and therefore have a good amount of fire domain spells to choose from. we encounter some major undead and i shine. kickin butt and taking names. i cast fire wall around party cutting off the waves attacking us. and the wraiths float over/ under wall and own a couple ppl. stuck using the lesser restorations i was lucky enough to prepare. so BBEG (big bad evil guy) pops up, flies over wall, and has gaze attacks, is out of reach of everyone and only dies due to a game mechanic where in a party member surrenders himself to a chaotic lightning demon and almost toasts party.
against undead, we do well, others, not so much. the issue with self buffs is in most cases u don't buff b4 u open every door, they...
I would agree. PF made a lot of good changes to clerics that broght them pretty closely in line. If you play with the core PF books, cleric are fine. The problem is it you start letting your players use the 3.5 splatbooks, clerics will be broken.
Another things to note. I play a battle cleric of a war god, so I have e very different play style from you. I smash things in the face, and I only heal in combat if I feel it is necessary. My party members know not to expect it, and they have healing pots for emergencies.
I refuse to believe that clerics are broken or op.
Based on your first example, it seems that statement is true if you spend most of the combat casting spells on yourself that won't take effect until the fight is over. That's something like saying:
"Fighters are weak because last week a kobold and a balor attacked us, and I spent a round killing the kobold, and then 2 rounds playing with the corpse, and by then the balor killed my friends."
All good points Beckett, especially the part about encounters.
I still don't see Clerics as being overpowered, and I am yet to see the Cleric build that demonstrates how they are OP so I can revise my opinion.
I look forward to opposing views proffering up a stat block for our consideration per my previous post.
It is one of "those" stories, you know, a friend of a friend. In this case a copy/paste of a copy/paste from a powergamer forum, . . .
I'm sure it happens, bu I've never seen it either. Well, not in a realistic sense.
QFT
I believe this right here could easily sum up the majority of "OMG this class is overpowered!" threads that crop up from time to time. Sure, we get the occasional cry for help from a DM who has a powergamer issue, but for the most part, I have yet to see a fraction of the OMG BROKEN builds actually crop up in my games. Maybe I'm just lucky like that :)
Personally, over-powered builds bore me. As a player, I NEED backstory justification for my characters crazy powers. I realize that everyone plays differently, and are entitled to their own enjoyment, but for me once I build a character that's walking all over everything the DM throws at us, I usually retire the character. Unless there's some story thing going on, I sit these characters out and bring in something a little more challenging.
I've played many clerics, and while the idea of making the cleric better than the fighter sounds great and all, I was usually too busy, ya know, being a cleric(buffing, healing, etc) to worry about doing it.
I've played many clerics, and while the idea of making the cleric better than the fighter sounds great and all, I was usually too busy, ya know, being a cleric(buffing, healing, etc) to worry about doing it.
By this logic, the cleric can have full BAB and deal an extra 20d6 damage on each attack, and that would be perfectly fine, because he's SUPPOSED to be buffing and healing, not fighting?
|
|
I've played many clerics, and while the idea of making the cleric better than the fighter sounds great and all, I was usually too busy, ya know, being a cleric(buffing, healing, etc) to worry about doing it.By this logic, the cleric can have full BAB and deal an extra 20d6 damage on each attack, and that would be perfectly fine, because he's SUPPOSED to be buffing and healing, not fighting?
That's not what I got from it. (?)
But I guess your probably right, that full BaB, +20d6 dmg Cleric is probably going to still have to lay off the atack and heal, debuff, and remove this or that affliction, too.
|
|
That's not what I got from it. (?)
But I guess your probably right, that full BaB, +20d6 dmg Cleric is probably going to still have to lay off the atack and heal, debuff, and remove this or that affliction, too.
I got much the same as Kirth did. His "being a cleric" wording suggested that a Cleric is not allowed to do anything but healing and buffing. Kirth was pointing out that of course he wouldn't see the Cleric as threatening to the Fighter if the Cleric played that way. Your own response feels similar too, as "what do you mean the Cleric isn't a healbot?" This is the same reason why people don't see a problem with the wizard because "what do you mean you're not casting Fireball?"
|
|
I got much the same as Kirth did. His "being a cleric" wording suggested that a Cleric is not allowed to do anything but healing and buffing. Kirth was pointing out that of course he wouldn't see the Cleric as threatening to the Fighter if the Cleric played that way. Your own response feels similar too, as "what do you mean the Cleric isn't a healbot?" This is the same reason why people don't see a problem with the wizard because "what do you mean you're not casting Fireball?"That's not what I got from it. (?)
But I guess your probably right, that full BaB, +20d6 dmg Cleric is probably going to still have to lay off the atack and heal, debuff, and remove this or that affliction, too.
It is not that at all. But there are times when the Cleric (and usually specifically the Cleric), must hold off attacking in order to do something. Sure I can swing my Mace and let the fighter run away for 2+ rounds from Fear, or I can cast Remove Fear and move to block them.
Healbot or not (and I personally hate healbots), sometimes the Cleric has to do some party healing/cureing/removing/buffing, or the party fails.
"Fighters are weak because last week a kobold and a balor attacked us, and I spent a round killing the kobold, and then 2 rounds playing with the corpse, and by then the balor killed my friends."
Erm, no, what he is saying was that in order to become reasonably effective, significant prep time was required that (given its short duration) was required to be performed at the start of the fight.
Not only did this take him out of the combat action, but also meant he wasnt free to perform his primary role as healer.
Hence, Cleric isn't broken, as there are significant trade-offs made if you wish to try compete as a Tank.
I am still yet to see the 'Good to Go' Cleric-and-Tank in a box best of both worlds extravaganza showing us that CORE RULES Clerics re OP.
I stand by my challenge previously posted on this thread for people who claim they are an OP class to provide us a clear example. Let your wildest prejudices run free - along with all the glorious details for our amazement.
Until then - NOT OP :)
Are we supposed to build an Overpowered Core only cleric or an overpowered Pathfinder + 3.5 everything goes cleric?
While the former isn't very easy due to the sheer number of spell nerfs in pathfinder core it's doable but probably won't impress everyone. Doing it with all the 3.5 material allowed including DMM + Persistent Spell + Nightsticks (Nightstick abuse requires a lenient DM) you can definitely create a build of cheese-filled goodness that will make most high level noncasters cry.
The key is that the cleric isn't best at any one thing (other than healing) it's that he's pretty close to second best in a huge number of areas. He's not the equal to the wizard in terms of casting (but he's close), he's not the equal to the fighter in melee (but he's pretty decent), plus he's got good saves, good HPs, decent weapons, good AC.
He's a quadratic class without the low-level suckitude of the wizard. He's able to pull a decent number of "I win" cards while also being pretty much able to keep himself and his allies in the fight.
I got much the same as Kirth did. His "being a cleric" wording suggested that a Cleric is not allowed to do anything but healing and buffing. Kirth was pointing out that of course he wouldn't see the Cleric as threatening to the Fighter if the Cleric played that way. Your own response feels similar too, as "what do you mean the Cleric isn't a healbot?" This is the same reason why people don't see a problem with the wizard because "what do you mean you're not casting Fireball?"That's not what I got from it. (?)
But I guess your probably right, that full BaB, +20d6 dmg Cleric is probably going to still have to lay off the atack and heal, debuff, and remove this or that affliction, too.
It is not that at all. But there are times when the Cleric (and usually specifically the Cleric), must hold off attacking in order to do something. Sure I can swing my Mace and let the fighter run away for 2+ rounds from Fear, or I can cast Remove Fear and move to block them.
Healbot or not (and I personally hate healbots), sometimes the Cleric has to do some party healing/cureing/removing/buffing, or the party fails.
At level 10....
CR10 encounters can have creatures that can deal 60-80 damage in a single round.
A level 10 cleric's best healing spell heals for 28 damage on average AND requires you to be in touch range.
A level 10 battle cleric can deal 50-70 damage in a single round.
Conclusion, most of the time your are better off NOT healing during combat. Offense is the best defense, and you will have plenty of time to heal after your enemies are dead.
Are we supposed to build an Overpowered Core only cleric or an overpowered Pathfinder + 3.5 everything goes cleric?
Core only.
As a Pathfinder player, in the Pathfinder part of the boards, I read that the Cleric is OP/Broken with interest. Now that I have had time to peruse the relevant threads, I have yet to see an example provided that substantiates the claim.
If I was reading a D&D 3.5 thread then I wouldn't pass judgment either way, as I am not a 3.5 player - and never was. I appreciate where these posters are coming from, but not all of us are 'backwards compatible' players.
So what I am asking for is that using only the official core rules, can we see an example of the Cleric that would highlight it as being the massive combat/casting beast that rivals fighters and runs a tight game on the wizards, as alluded to earlier.
I was particularly interested in a write up stat block from say 1/5/10/15 so we can examine the power curve of said beast - and the 5-15 range being particularly interesting as that is where the game really takes place - beyond 15 is only seen by the smallest minority - but include it if you wish.
|
|
I got much the same as Kirth did. His "being a cleric" wording suggested that a Cleric is not allowed to do anything but healing and buffing. Kirth was pointing out that of course he wouldn't see the Cleric as threatening to the Fighter if the Cleric played that way. Your own response feels similar too, as "what do you mean the Cleric isn't a healbot?" This is the same reason why people don't see a problem with the wizard because "what do you mean you're not casting Fireball?"That's not what I got from it. (?)
But I guess your probably right, that full BaB, +20d6 dmg Cleric is probably going to still have to lay off the atack and heal, debuff, and remove this or that affliction, too.
It is not that at all. But there are times when the Cleric (and usually specifically the Cleric), must hold off attacking in order to do something. Sure I can swing my Mace and let the fighter run away for 2+ rounds from Fear, or I can cast Remove Fear and move to block them.
Healbot or not (and I personally hate healbots), sometimes the Cleric has to do some party healing/cureing/removing/buffing, or the party fails.
At level 10....
CR10 encounters can have creatures that can deal 60-80 damage in a single round.
A level 10 cleric's best healing spell heals for 28 damage on average AND requires you to be in touch range.
A level 10 battle cleric can deal 50-70 damage in a single round.
Conclusion, most of the time your are better off NOT healing during combat. Offense is the best defense, and you will have plenty of time to heal after your enemies are dead.
While true, there are still going to be times when either the enire party is in need a heal RIGHT NOW not 1 round later, or you stumble upon a Lich and the Lich starts casting Enervation while the party Fighter and Rogue starts looking like they want to be running the other way. Mr. Cleric isn't going to kill the Lich in one round, but will probably kill the party if the Fighter and Rogue run away.
|
|
Are we supposed to build an Overpowered Core only cleric or an overpowered Pathfinder + 3.5 everything goes cleric?
While the former isn't very easy due to the sheer number of spell nerfs in pathfinder core it's doable but probably won't impress everyone. Doing it with all the 3.5 material allowed including DMM + Persistent Spell + Nightsticks (Nightstick abuse requires a lenient DM) you can definitely create a build of cheese-filled goodness that will make most high level noncasters cry.
The key is that the cleric isn't best at any one thing (other than healing) it's that he's pretty close to second best in a huge number of areas. He's not the equal to the wizard in terms of casting (but he's close), he's not the equal to the fighter in melee (but he's pretty decent), plus he's got good saves, good HPs, decent weapons, good AC.
He's a quadratic class without the low-level suckitude of the wizard. He's able to pull a decent number of "I win" cards while also being pretty much able to keep himself and his allies in the fight.
That's the thing, in 3.5 (without any 3rd party material) a Rogue could charge into a room, Charge-Power Attack(max)-Leap Attack-Sneak Attack-Double weild a Spiked Chain (yes it was possible!!!)-Great Cleave, and wipe an entire room of appropriate CR targets. Or a Fighter with Mounted Combat + Lance even worse.
So again, prove the Cleric is broken in any way that no other class is. Or was. It is safe to assume now everyone agrees the PF is not in any wa Broke or Over Powered. It is simply not true.
While true, there are still going to be times when either the enire party is in need a heal RIGHT NOW not 1 round later, or you stumble upon a Lich and the Lich starts casting Enervation while the party Fighter and Rogue starts looking like they want to be running the other way. Mr. Cleric isn't going to kill the Lich in one...
That also assumes I have the right spell memorized.... Remove fear is a very situational spell, and even IF I choose to memorize it that day, who says I didn't already convert it to a healing spell. Healing is the only thing a cleric can consistantly do.
Removing conditions is situational. I don't think PF clerics are broken, but you can't balance the cleric based on the assumption it is going to spend most of its time in combat doing support actions.
People are going to say that the cleric is OP simply because it violates design principles.
Look these examples of several core classes.
Wizard
HD- d6
1/2 BAB
Low Skill Points but prime requisite synergizes with skill use
Low number of class skills
Mediocre Saves
Bad Armor
Bad Weapons
Great Utility Spells
Good Blast
Good Buff
Great Control/Summon
Moderate number of bonus feats
Flexible Caster
Full caster Progression
Sorceror
HD - d6
1/2 BAB
Low Skill Points prime requisite does not synergize
Low number of class skills
Mediocre Saves
Bad Armor
Mediocre Weapons
Great Utility
Good Blast
Good Buff
Great Control / Summon
Inflexible caster
Full caster Progression
(Honestly Sorceror even with bloodline powers isn't as strong as wizard- It's cool for NPC spellcaster statblocks though)
Bard
HD -d8
3/4 BAB
Good Skill Points
Good Number of Class Skills
Good Saves
Moderate Armor
Mediocre Weapons
Good Utility
Bad Blast
Good Buff
Mediocre Control/Summon
Inflexible caster
Partial caster progression
Good class abilities
Fighter
HD - d10
3/4 BAB
Crap Skill Points
Bad Class Skills
Mediocre Saves
Great Armor
Great Weaponry
Good customization with bonus feats
No casting
Cleric
HD - d8
3/4 BAB
Crap Skill Points
Bad Class Skills
Good Armor
Mediocre weapons (can be good depending on favored god)
Good Saves plus prime requisite makes for frightening will saves bonuses
Moderate Utility
Moderate Blast
Great Buff (I'm counting healing as a buff)
Good Summon/Control
Flexible caster
Full progression
Good class abilities
When you compare the cleric to the bard, ie 3/4 BAB spellcasters, the cleric is pretty obviously a standout in comparison. He's got better saves (virtue of wisdom being a prime stat), same HP, same BAB, better armor, comparable weaponry and better all around spellcasting. He admittedly has crappy skills (unless you go with a wierd trickster cleric build) and is somewhat vulnerable to reflex focused attacks but his dps is comparable and his total utility is way higher.
In truth the only real obvious rivals in terms of raw power and utility are the other 2 quads (wizard and druid). Druid is wonky but I'd say the pathfinder druid is finally pulled into line with the cleric and while the core wizard obviously has greater utility than the core cleric I'd say in a comparison of power/durability across level 1-20 the wizard is far more vulnerable than the cleric.
It comes down to whether or not you think the cleric spell list is so gimped in comparison to the wizard spell list that clerics deserve all of the extras that they get. I personally think the clerics were buffed too much in 3.x from the 1e/2e cleric. I do admit that the cleric was toned down from 3.0 to 3.5 and from 3.5 to Pathfinder although some feats and options do tend to make clerics painfully awesome.
I understand that nobody wanted to play a 1e/2e cleric because they were stuck healing all the time but I think the precedent set in 3.0 was bad and they've been trying to tone down the cleric ever since (with some successes and failures).
Are we supposed to build an Overpowered Core only cleric or an overpowered Pathfinder + 3.5 everything goes cleric?Core only.
As a Pathfinder player, in the Pathfinder part of the boards, I read that the Cleric is OP/Broken with interest. Now that I have had time to peruse the relevant threads, I have yet to see an example provided that substantiates the claim.
If I was reading a D&D 3.5 thread then I wouldn't pass judgment either way, as I am not a 3.5 player - and never was. I appreciate where these posters are coming from, but not all of us are 'backwards compatible' players.
So what I am asking for is that using only the official core rules, can we see an example of the Cleric that would highlight it as being the massive combat/casting beast that rivals fighters and runs a tight game on the wizards, as alluded to earlier.
I was particularly interested in a write up stat block from say 1/5/10/15 so we can examine the power curve of said beast - and the 5-15 range being particularly interesting as that is where the game really takes place - beyond 15 is only seen by the smallest minority - but include it if you wish.
Clerics with the Holy Warrior Option are the only cleric option that I think may be broken. You get fighter BAB, HP, and can take fighter only feats for your diety's favored weapon in exchange for losing all your domain spells and abilities. You still have the option to cast spells like Divine Power and Righteous Might.
That is from PF Chronicles, so not sure if I would count it as core or not.
I think clerics are strong characters.
However, I do not think they are over powered. It has to be taken into consideration that in most cases their spells are not as directly lethal as arcane spells are. Also the cleric has to service his party with buffs, healing and damage mitigation. I think good saves and armor is only a fair compensation.
As far as broken clerics go, EVERY, character class can be broken. It depends on the level of power gaming in the group.
I have heard the same about wizards and sorcerers. About druids. And also fighters and rogues.
If a character class becomes a problem in the game it is solely due to the GMs inability to control the game.
which PF Chronicles are you referring to? a Full BAB cleric would be awesome and Probably pwn a fighter- i can hardly believe Paizo would publish such an option.
The big one. The "camapign setting" so to speak.
Clerics using 'Divine Metamagic : Persistant Spell', 'Extra Turning', 'Nightsticks' and so forth could be pretty strong in 3.0/3.5 without a doubt, but so could dozens of other character classes and builds.
Dont get me wrong, Pathfinder Clerics are pretty strong, but I generally use a rule of thumb that whatever is good for the goose is good for the gander too (moderate to major NPC's using the same Feats and Items, etc). But with Pathfinder we're trying to stick to the core rulebooks while using some limited material from 3.5 (I have the whole collection practically).
I think the classes are pretty balanced, given that Clerics had Heavy Armor Proficiency removed (though a Feat can take care of that) and can use only Simple Weapons (apart from their diety's favored weapon). Dont get me wrong, Clerics are buffing machines and they can heal more than ever before thanks to their Channel Energy ability. Few characters can compare to Clerics in terms of buffing and healing in this manner - even Druids cant compare to the healing ability of a cleric in Pathfinder
'Nightsticks' and feats like 'Divine Metamagic : Persistant Spell' should be used loosely at best, and there should be a limit on things like 'Nightsticks', there isnt - its legal cheese (but cheese all the same). Just dont overdo it - as a GM, I tend to use whatever tactics my players employ to some extent with my moderate to high end NPC's - since if the tactic is common enough why not let decently powerful bad guys enjoy it too?
I'm a fossil and have a hard time with the above :p I think I am stuck in the age of Blunt only weapons - Clerics with swords is just all wrong.
Amen, brother. And spells over 7th level, WTF!? In my day we called a thief a thief. We had THAC0s and negative Armor Classes and we were grateful, by God.
Zo
So if REALLY want to weaken or beat the class solution is to simply tone them down for your games if thats your issue.Step 1: give them spell failure in armor
Step 2: give them D6 hit dice
Step 3: remove there armor proficiency.
I don't think clerics need THAT much nerfing, the broken options(Divine metamagic,Persistant Spell...etc.) do not appear in PFRPG,yet.
Clerics need to keep decent HP, AC and saves since they're likely to be the priority targets of enemy. And before channeling appeared, clerics had to stand right next to another party member in order to heal, that makes them easy targets of enemy brutes.If clerics's hit dice dropped to d6, cannot wear armor, it's easy to imagine that they will die very quickly, unless their spell lists got an overhaul.
Amen, brother. And spells over 7th level, WTF!? In my day we called a thief a thief. We had THAC0s and negative Armor Classes and we were grateful, by God.
Zo
...and so it was, and it was good.
Hallelujah, praise be to Gygax :)
So if REALLY want to weaken or beat the class solution is to simply tone them down for your games if thats your issue.Step 1: give them spell failure in armor
Step 2: give them D6 hit dice
Step 3: remove there armor proficiency.
I don't think clerics need THAT much nerfing, the broken options(Divine metamagic,Persistant Spell...etc.) do not appear in PFRPG,yet.
Clerics need to keep decent HP, AC and saves since they're likely to be the priority targets of enemy. And before channeling appeared, clerics had to stand right next to another party member in order to heal, that makes them easy targets of enemy brutes.
If clerics's hit dice dropped to d6, cannot wear armor, it's easy to imagine that they will die very quickly, unless their spell lists got an overhaul.
This was just a hypothetical suggestion, not a " is what i believe should be done" suggestion. People are complaining there broken and need some kind of nerf or reduction in power. If you nerfed them as i said above, made heals ranged then wouldn't be an issue. Make them priests not walking tanks of destruction. The initial problem with priest is that get full armor, decent hp, amazing buffs and healing on top of that. Why have a fighter tank? when a battle priest can pretty much take his place... as for getting killed... i beg to differ, i played a shugenja which is a divine sorc with cloth armor(i used cloth because i was a priest not a warrior priest) and i never had an issue with getting killed. Even when i was focus fired i had enough buffs and such to survive any attack i came under.
Low base attack: doesnt hurt them just makes them more of a caster then a pew pew melee whore.
Low HP: would be an issue if cleric was charging into front line, but if cure spells became ranged(30 feet 6 sqaures) wouldn't be an issue. Play the cleric like a caster, use ranged spells to heal, buff ect. you'd be a back line healer, ONLY thing probably need is a form of mage armor spell since most get at low level is a +2 AC but not to hard to implement.
Lack of Armor: is made up for by spells buffs and the like. Nothing stopping you from grabbing a level of fighter and returning to your glory of a melee warrior.
I restate real problem with cleric is... get GOOD attack bonuses, GOOD armor, and GOOD hp presents a general problem with healer of the game being able to fill role of fighter, tank and dps and with right build can do all 3 at same time. Its not just a few select feats, and PF did alot to fix classes but still alot of power difference between the classes. If people really want to " balance " the class powers paizo would have to do alot of redesign of the classes, like i've suggested however!
LET ME make it very clear i feel the game works fine as is! why? because D&D is about being a team player, so idea one class is stronger then other i dont think is as big a deal as people make it out to be. I have no issues with cleric in my games, and use core PF so yea not saying class needs adjusted, just giving suggestions to those do want to alter them to depower them some how.
Don't forget Divine MetaMagic's little brother: Divine Spell Power
Instead of using turn attempts for undead, why not just increase your spell caster level for the next spell. As a swift action, you roll turn attempt and if it says Cleric +1 on chart: you've just got +1 caster.
Less broken than DMM, but still good (vs SR, Duration, Caster level benefits like GMW).
As a DM I have always applied an no-rule yet basic-to-me system to clerics that will probably not fit here:
You have to worship a deity and/or follow a faith.
The players have to act following certain ethics that might not always fit the party's imediate goal, the optimal choices in an encounter or the best optimal built.
It's not a paladin but a cleric should (in my humble opinion) follow some form of Code linked with it's faith that can be a balancing element of the class' possible power-rating.
Have any of you claiming the cleric is overpowered ever actually tried playing one without trying to look for every single way to break it? Every class can be broken by those looking to do so, and the cleric is no different, but as someone currently playing a cleric with a dm that works to make sure everything stays relatively balanced, I can safely say that my experience thus far is that the cleric, as written in the core rules with only a few spells from other sources, is most definitely not broken. Even with the addition of the Spell Compendium, the first few levels of cleric spells is almost all buffing and situational, the few attack spells available are really only effective against undead, and even those few attack spells are almost exclusively based on will saves.
Shutting down a cleric's attack ability, at least at lower levels, is a cake walk, and even at higher levels, all the nice buff spells only help if you have several rounds warning that battle is about to ensue.
The biggest balancing factors of the cleric is that you are not the best at anything except healing, which really shouldn't be needed if the group can pull off even basic common sense tactics, and is a pain to do in battle anyway considering the range of the cure spells. Therefore, for most of the actual fight, you are not actually the best at anything useful, but able to support in many ways. That's a fair trade off to me.
Second, the spell list, while not bad, is highly situational and weighted to spells that require the same save, limiting them to basically hitting non casters with them. While I'm not overly familiar with higher levels, I would be surprised if the trend toward will saves changes that drastically at higher levels, and most of them are still likely to be highly situational. Even the druid spell list is more balanced in that they have spells that can hit a variety of targets in a variety of situations.
All in all, the cleric is a class that on paper looks extremely powerful, and in certain situations can be, but my experience of playing one for multiple levels is that the actual power level in game really isn't that much higher than any other class, in some cases worse, like if your party is capable of using tactics that minimize damage taken, or if you are not facing undead; even with the changes with channel energy ability, the spell list is still heavily skewed towards fighting undead, or if you include the Spell Compendium, outsiders of opposing alignments.
People who are assuming that the cleric is buffing in combat are laboring under bad assumptions. 3.x is largely built on certain assumptions. One of those key assumptions is that past level 6 or so (and certainly by level 10+) the PCs can effectively control the pace of play. While they aren't necessarily fun the RAW definitely supports "scry-n-fry" behavior where the PCs use divinations from a safe launching pad, pre-combat buff and then port in and go nova. Even before scry-n-fry becomes routine, the party can often dictate pace of play through effective scouting either with a rogue, a familiar/animal companion, or divination spells. Pre-combat buffing (except at realy low levels) can often be accomplished by casting outside of a short distance away from the enemy and then engaging.
Further it requires pretty significant amount of metagaming to discourage usage of these tactics. Under the scry-n-fry paradigm the cleric can definitely buff as needed and then rock when the mage ports the party in. At the end of the battle the cleric heals up the party as needed and they either commando run another encounter or word of recall/teleport back out. Rinse and Repeat.
Now the DM can structure adventures where the PCs are less in control of the timeline (artificial time deadlines) but in many cases these strategies are pretty railroady and often useless in sandbox style play. However they can be done and done effectively.
DMM + Persistent (if you play with 3.x expanded) simply removes the need to pre-combat buff because the big cleric buffs simply lasted all day. That means the party emerges from their mage's mansion in the morning with the party all getting a heroes' feast and the cleric buffed to the nines.
This is why basically every 3.x mid to high level fight revolved around dispel magic / greater dispel because buffs became such an ever present phenomenon. Buffing and healing during combat were often wasted actions (haste being a major exception) when it's much more efficient to heal/buff out of combat and then go warrior/blaster cleric in combat.
Now obviously YMMV, hell in some campaigns the wizard isn't the most powerful class, but in RAW discussions it's best to assume rampant optimization when discussing class balance rather than simply assuming that DM-Player social contract will eliminate abuses.
... in RAW discussions it's best to assume rampant optimization when discussing class balance rather than simply assuming that DM-Player social contract will eliminate abuses.
Alas, the mantra of these boards is "there's no such thing as bad design; only bad DMing." People really believe that, and do NOT want to consider the possibility that the published rules might be improved. Any discussion of class balance quickly brands you a heretic.
--Unabashed Heretic|
|
Oh, no, no, no. Most people understand that there is bad design and rules. But, there is also gaming groups (of which the DM is the figurehead), do not fully understand things and misrepresent it as broken, overpowered, bad, etc. . .
This is much more along those lines. Every single class can be broke. Most feats, abilities, or whatever also. But not everyone wants to play the most broken thing in the game. At least not for very long. It gets boring. And that is the primary balancing factor when looking at things like this. Not can it possibly be done, but is it really going to be done very often.
Another (real) problem with Divine Metamagic was tht it finally did something very useful for the Clerics. Who, before tht, really did nothave much in the way of good feat options. In my experience, Divine Vengence (Complete Warrior) and Divine Justice (PHB2) are similar. There just wasn't anything else great to ake, and so it wasn't that Divine Metamagic sood out as broken, just one of the very few good choices. Let me say it a different way, there was little else worth taking instead. The Cleric was one of the only classes that didn't have a good, solid Chain feat options (and I mean outside the generic ones even Commoner's could take). They didn't have much in the way of feats that really built up existing class features, or allowed alternate uses of them. Especially in the Core book, but comparitively even in later splat books. 75% of everything was focused on Rogue, Wizard/Sorcerer, and Fighter, (usually in that order, too), with the rest being split between everyone else, Druid being the most common. If your going to say splat and 3rd party material broke the Cleric, I say no. The Cleric was the one that benefited the absolute least from selections of brokeness there.
Frenzied Berserker, (and the often overlooked but more powerful Bear Warrior), Leap Attack, Abjurant Champion (and many other specialty arcane caster classes, too), Improved Metamagic (in Arcane hands), Book of Nine Swords (check out the "Arcane" Swordsage, 'nuff said), Monkey Grip, Shock Trooper/Combat Brute, & (I think the FR feat is called) Arcane Devotee.
I will admit, if you were going to create a party all out of one class, Cleric is the way to go probably by a longshot. Two negative energy specialists, a positive energy specialist and a battle priest would likely be the most effective (four of the same class) party there is.
Four Rogues would probably come in second as you could avoiod most encounters and use each other for flanking in the few that you did have to fight.
We had about a bazillion different to-hit charts spread all over the DM's screen. DnD was for geeks because only geeks could do the math fast enough to play.
...which is why I liked the Thac0 that we eventually moved to :p
Trying to work out what modifier to apply because I was using a Bec De Corbin or Glaive against a Splint Mail wearing Fighter at age 9 while trying to get the game done by the end of recess made us fast at math.
That said, I started with a White Box edition - which I still have.
You know I still wonder - our GM ended up getting a Doctorate in Maths and working for NASA, I ended up as a Bank Manager, and the rest of the group are all in 'numbers' jobs.
Anyhow, as to Clerics, I take on board all that has been said above and they do appear to be a good solid class, but the claims of broken have so far been pretty unsubstantiated. We have yet to be supplied with the Uber-Tankage killing machine of spell chucking doom.
It seems that 3.X rules may well have made an OP class, however OF has brought them back into line - and the abuses only really resurfacing if the class is allowed to use the older material.
As mentioned earlier, my interest only lies in the PF materials, as I wasn't a 3.X player and at a table of other PF only guys.
The reason I suspected the class wasn't broken was because people keep refusing to play them, just like the good old days - I'm about the only person who routinely used to. :p
As a DM I have always applied an no-rule yet basic-to-me system to clerics that will probably not fit here:
You have to worship a deity and/or follow a faith.
You'd think that such an obvious cornerstone of the class would have been alarmingly self evident, but as you suggest, the number of players that miss this is surprising.