Cleric-y Fighters (or Fighter-y Clerics)

[CleverNickName]

From a game mechanics point of view, how is the Cleric of Pelor any different from the fighter? I'm seeing a lot more similarities than differences here, for better or worse.

Both can wear armor.

Both can use a shield.

Both can fight with simple and martial weapons.

Don't get me started on healing ability.

The Radiant Lance deals the same amount of damage as the fighter's crossbow (1d8 + prime requisite). The fighter has to use both hands to operate a crossbow and he has to track his ammunition; the cleric's "crossbow" has less range, but automatically reloads, never runs out of ammo, and can be fired one-handed.

I could go on, but you see where I'm going with this.

I don't think there is an appreciable difference between these two iconic classes. Most of what we are calling "differences" are just vocabulary, wording, and flavor text...all of the numbers are nearly identical. I hope they fix this as the game develops. I would like to see a dozen distinct classes--not a dozen flavors of cleric.

 

[FireLance]

Are you mixing up the cleric of Pelor with the cleric of Moradin? The cleric of Moradin is the one with the shield - the cleric of Pelor uses a quarterstaff, and is only proficient with light and medium armor, basic weapons and simple missile weapons.

 

[KidSnide]

Are you serious? Fighters have better weapon attacks, armor and hit points -- plus the fighter abilities currently expressed in fighter's surge (presumably the "simple alternative" to maneuvers). Clerics have divine spells, channel divinity and an appropriately themed domain.

-KS

 

[BobTheNob]

Fighters have better weapon attacks, armor and hit points

-KS

I thought clerics and fighters get the same armor options

 

[CleverNickName]

Are you mixing up the cleric of Pelor with the cleric of Moradin? The cleric of Moradin is the one with the shield - the cleric of Pelor uses a quarterstaff, and is only proficient with light and medium armor, basic weapons and simple missile weapons.

Not mixing. I'm saying that the cleric class obviously allows shields, hammers, quarterstaffs, etc. These proficiencies might be keyed to race, not class...which I think would make them even more similar in the long run.

Are you serious? Fighters have better weapon attacks, armor and hit points -- plus the fighter abilities currently expressed in fighter's surge (presumably the "simple alternative" to maneuvers). Clerics have divine spells, channel divinity and an appropriately themed domain.

Yes, I am serious. The fighter gets about a 10% better (+2 bonus) combat bonus depending on the weapon being used, but weapon damage seems to be keyed more to the character's race than class. (And whether or not either class uses the Slayer theme.) Everything else is vocabulary. The cleric says "divine spells," the fighter says "martial powers," but they all mean the same thing: "cool tricks."

Not identical. But very, very similar. Too similar, IMO.

 

[Campbell]

Minor Point: The cleric's at will does not do the same amount of damage as the fighter's crossbow. The fighter's crossbow does 1d8+ Ability Mod + 4. Weapon focus only says +2 damage but both of the fighters weapons do damage dice plus ability mod plus 4. He's using a dexterity ranged weapon. The play test fighter just hasn't acquired the right crossbow for his ability scores yet. It's also in the low levels where everyone tends to look the same. I'm going to bet that with the exception magic missile minor spells will not scale up in damage while the fighter's weapon attacks will.

That being said if Clerics are going to be more magicky I would be in favor of Strength requirements for armor. War domain cleric in heavy armor = good. Spell cleric in heavy armor = not so good.

 

[CleverNickName]

Minor Point: The cleric's at will does not do the same amount of damage as the fighter's crossbow. The fighter's crossbow does 1d8+ Ability Mod + 4.

The ability mods will vary from character to character in the playtest, but I think that will change when we are actually rolling up characters and playing the game. If each class has a single ability score that drives most of their abilities, I think that it will be very rare to see characters with less than an 18 in that key ability. +4 damage, regardless of the attack, will become the norm.

Good catch, though. +4 damage on 1d8+4 is about 33% more damage, on average. Quite a bit, but I still don't think it is enough to justify calling it a completely different character class.

 

[IanB]

Not mixing. I'm saying that the cleric class obviously allows shields, hammers, quarterstaffs, etc. These proficiencies might be keyed to race, not class...which I think would make them even more similar in the long run.

You're making some very big assumptions about how mix-and-match-able the abilities of the 2 playtest clerics are.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Everything else is vocabulary. The cleric says "divine spells," the fighter says "martial powers," but they all mean the same thing

Just because that was the case in 4th Edition doesn't mean it's the case in any past or future D&D.

 

[deadwor1d]

Ok, so without going too far into the reverse-engineering, there are a couple of things I want to point out.

The fighter's crossbow is there as an alternative to rushing into melee. These things do come up in game. But the fighter's strength is on the front line. There will probably be themes that will make ranged fighters more viable.

The priest's radiant lance is his bread and butter attack. HIS strength is when there are hoards of undead roaming about. (I am sure there are others, but I am just picking the most obvious as it comes to mind).

The fighter's main weapon is +6/2d6+7 and he ALWAYS does some damage, hit or miss.

The priest's main weapon is +4/1d8+5, ranged.

I'm not going into the Moradin cleric on this point. Just the priest.

The priest does not have access to all weapons, heavy armor, or shields, according to the character sheet. I have a feeling this is the BASE for the cleric with better armor and weapon options becoming available for the more fighty cleric types through theme or background (guess), but even then, the damage output of a fighter is simply not there.

The Moradin cleric has a better AC, but worse HP than the fighter. That probably balances itself out some. But even he is doing considerably less damage than the fighter, trading off for some spells and defensive capabilities.

I conclude, based on this, that the fighter still rules the smackdown in this iteration with the other characters (clerics, in this case) providing support with their strengths in other arenas.