WHy do druids and clerics get special treatment?

[Sylrae]

Just something I've always wondered.

Why do the druid and cleric get medium bab, better hp, and armor access, while retaining full spellcasting?

It's been often said that they were the most powerful class.

Take a look at the summoner. Other than summon spells, he casts like a bard for that medium bab and d8.

Are there reasons that the druid and cleric should cast up to 9th level spells instead of being capped at 6? (d10 hd: armor + 4th level spell cap, d8 hd: lighter armor + 6th level spell cap, d6 hd: no armor + 9th level cap?)

am I the only one who sees the cleric and druid as a wizard with an "infinite spell list" and nonmagical combat abilities to boot?

I'm not saying this thought is right. Maybe it makes sense as is. if so, I wouldn't mind hearing an explanation as to why.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Clerics and Druids get a better BAB and armor proficiencies because they tend to get into melee alot, while wizards and sorcerers are designed to avoid melee like the plague. Clerics and Druids don't have the arsenal of offensive spells that arcane casters do. Instead, they have powerful buff spells and things like wild shape that allow them to go into melee and not die horribly.

As for why they get their entire spell list free, I've always kinda disliked this too, though their spell list doesn't even begin to compare to the wiz/sor list for power and versatility. Clerics and Druids each fill a much narrower niche, while wizards and sorcerers have a spell for just about everything imaginable other than healing and resurrection (with high level spells like wish, they can even do that).

 

[Gorbacz]

You're kind of 10 years late to the party, Sylrae - if not longer. The "why clerics and druids are more awesome than the rest of the universe" topic was beaten to death across the history of 3.0 and 3.5. Whatever we will write here will be just a repeat of that discussion.

 

[pawsplay]

Basic summary: the 3e design team felt that, on the whole, people needed a little bribery to make sure someone always wanted to play a cleric, as healing and buffing was not deemed to be all that glamorous. Since druids might be pressed into service as a healer, they got brought along for the ride.

 

[Sylrae]

I had those discussions in 3.x, I just find it odd that they weren't addressed in pfrpg.

I remember in 2e cleric spells only went up to 7th level. Don't remember how druids were handled, but I think it was similar.

I wouldn't mind druids and clerics as 2/3 casters, like the bard and summoner, and make full caster versions that are squishier with all the way up to 9th, and a couple extra perks.

Has anyone tried this and how did it work.

Are the spell lists really that specialized to make up for the fact that they get extra goodies? I think I remember seeing damage spells for the druid as good as the wizard's, though I'm not sure the cleric gets fantastic spells that are not buffs.

Obviously cleric and druid fans would protest, but would lowering the spell level access for clerics and druids to match the other d8 casters make them terrible? would they need a couple other goodies to bring them back up in power to match the summoner?

 

[Sylrae]

Basic summary: the 3e design team felt that, on the whole, people needed a little bribery to make sure someone always wanted to play a cleric, as healing and buffing was not deemed to be all that glamorous. Since druids might be pressed into service as a healer, they got brought along for the ride.

Hmm. not many players play a druid built for healing (I've seen players refuse to even prepare healing spells, and tell the party members to buy potions/wands - or say the most they'll do is operate the cure light wounds wands purchased by the rest of the party), and to a lesser extent, seen clerics do the same. "I worship the god of war. I don't take healing spells."
Now, I don't have a problem with either of those, in theory. You don't want to make a healer but still want to make a religious/nature type? that should be doable.

The bard and (now) the witch, also healers, the witch can actually fill the role of party healer, don't get those goodies. The witch gets full casting but a d6, and the bard gets a d8 but 2/3 casting (and virtually nothing he can do BUT buff and heal ~and perform).

I don't expect my players to build parties with healers if they don't want to, and in that case try to make healing items readily available (I don't even require the players to build parties to cover everything - one time we had 2 different builds of rogue, a noncasting ranger variant, a swashbucvkler, and a fighter. they went through a hell of alot of potions and used alot of wands. lol.)

But the explanation wasn't that of making them on an even playing field, more of bribing someone who may play the healer?

I'm seriously considering going the route of the summoner on these guys. 2/3 casting, with whatever your schtick is as something you can do better than that. The summoner can summon and planar ally up to 9th, and even has an SLA for it. The cleric should get cure/inflict/restoration stuff/etc to 9 even if the rest of the spells only go to 6, and the druid should get summon nature's ally up to 9 (and should look very similar to the summoner.) Is there a good reason ~NOT~ to perform this particular nerf? Has anyone already done a decent job of it?

 

[gamerprinter]

APG Inquisitor

Well there's the APG Inquisitor, he's a divine caster going to 6th level though starting at first, a limited spell list though. He's also good with the bow, and his judgements, as well as team feats. He's kind of a ranger for the church. Certainly fitting a different niche, and probably not what you're looking for, but such a character already exists.

I've thought about experimenting building an arcane caster using the Inquisitor as template, and swapping arcane for divine spells, a limited spell list, and something other than judgements, though bow would make as good a weapon choice, perhaps sword too. Just for experimentation.

GP

 

[Sylrae]

What I'm going for is more of a weighing of the pros and cons of nerfing druid and cleric (maybe oracle too). by either lowering bab/hd/armor proficiencies, or lowering their casting to that of the summoner, and then offering both options seperately.

The alternative that I also think would be worth weighing the pros and cons of would be considering the ramifications of upping everyone to d8s with light armor proficiency, and dropping the bad bab entirely. (I dont think this is the way to go for the record, but it raises the question, why does that spellcasting class get it when this one doesnt? I'm not sure I'm convinced the cleric spell list is so terribly inferior to the wizard list.)

I'm looking for comments on how it would be good/bad and why, and any suggestions that may be better. I mean, there is a reason people frequently cite these two classes as the most powerful in the game-that to me means we either start using them as the measuring stick and raise anything up until it's as good as these are, or we tone them back until they're on par with the other classes more.

 

[billd91]

I don't think much good would come from nerfing the druid or cleric. Some of the reasons they've got their benefits are legacy - moderate BAB, d8 hit die plus their typical roles in a campaign.
As for why they get 9th level spells, there wasn't much reason to restrict them from that. The 7th level spells in 1e/2e made them pretty much full casters then and 3e just normalized it so that every full caster got the same levels of spells. Wizards and sorcerers get a lot flashier and variable offense by comparison and that's a fair trade with the lower BAB and hp of the arcanists.
The real issue is the expansion of spells and getting the full list to choose from. The expanded spells have to be much more carefully balanced in the whole of the spell list for clerics and druids than the wizards and sorcerers who have to deliberately build their lists, incorporating higher opportunity costs the whole time.
Besides, the main problem with the druid - wildshape - has already been substantially reduced in power. Not much more is necessary.

 

[Kaisoku]

The Oracle has Sorcerer spellcasting. In my own play experience (yes, actual play experience, not theory), the level behind on curative response magic (such as, curing permanent blindness for example), is felt critically.

The 3.5e (or was it 3.0e?) DMG had rules on creating new spells for casters. It stated some fairly specific rules for how to build a divine spell over an arcane spell.
Let me see if I can find it...

... Okay, I'll paraphrase some of the advice stated in here (pg 35, 3.5e ver):

- If it's so good you can't see someone not taking it, then it's too powerful (or too low level).
- Compare range/duration/target to other spells to check the balance.
- Arcane magic should have the best offensive magic, flashy/dramatic, but not have healing/restorative magic.
- Clerics should have the best curative and alignment magic, and have great information gathering magic.
- Druids should have the best animal/plant magic.
etc (more stuff on the different classes)

Then there's a section on "Damage Caps for Spells", where it outright states the damage caps for different levels, with a specifically different table for Divine magic that lists all damage amounts at one step behind.

So originally, the spell lists for Clerics and Druids were meant to be far more restrictive.
Also, the Druid has a bit of a different spell list over the Cleric, in that their curative magic is delayed slightly, which allows access to some more "flashy" or damaging spells accessed earlier (around Arcane Magic levels) in compensation, but only when it's appropriate to nature magic.

Splatbooks and 3PP material tended to power creep, and thus remove those types of restrictions in many areas... which is why it's not usually an issue if you played with core rules only.