Cleric-y Fighters (or Fighter-y Clerics)

[Ellington]

I agree with CleverNickName.

What a level 1 fighter has over a level 1 cleric with the same stats and equipment are a few more hit points and +2 to his damage rolls. That's it. It might change at higher levels, but I haven't played that far.

I don't think that's enough to distinguish the fighter class straight off the bat. They mentioned that the fighter might be able to take two themes, which would help a lot, but I want something that defines the fighter a bit more. Some core mechanic aside from a bonus to damage. Maybe those are fighter surges, which I haven't played with, but those are on a very limited basis, so I don't think they'll cut it.

 

[Campbell]

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.

Part of the problem with evaluating these characters is that not all class/racial abilities are properly notated. Take another look at the damage expression for the light crossbow - the fighter is doing 1d8+5 with a weapon that uses his Dexterity modifier according to the How to Play document. He really should have scrounged together for another 15 gold and gotten a heavy crossbow which uses Strength mod. Then he'd be doing 1d10+7. Almost as much as his melee attack.

 

[CleverNickName]

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

Yes. Yes I am.

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

I never played 4E, so I really can't say. I just hope the differences become more distinct between the classes, that's all. I hope there is more to a character class than the way the math is described.

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.

I hope you are right. In the playtest, the two do not feel "different" enough to me. The same thing for the wizard and the Pelor cleric--they play very similar to each other, but with different flavor text.

 

[KidSnide]

I thought clerics and fighters get the same armor options

According to the proficiency listings, clerics get light and medium armor (but no shields), while fighters get all armor and all shields.

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.

Several differences:

• The fighter can use any martial weapon. The cleric (without racial or war domain abilities) can only use basic weapons and simple missile weapons.
• The fighter also gets a +2 damage bonus, and may also get a +1 to hit bonus.
• The fighter wears heavy armor, while the cleric wears medium armor. The fighter can also use a shield while the cleric cannot. With current equipment and stats these characters happen to have the same AC, overall you expect fighters to have better armor than clerics.
• The fighter has more hit points and a bigger hit die (d10 instead of d8).

Overall, the fighter is a much better melee combatant than the cleric. At higher levels, the fighter also gets the ability to make additional attacks or take other actions.

• The cleric has spells, at first level: cure light wounds, spiritual hammer and searing light. (We don't know if these are mandated by the domain or chosen by the character builder.)
• The cleric can detect magic or use a radiant ranged attack at will.
• The cleric can turn undead.

The cleric has spell abilities (several of which have non-damage effects totally outside the fighter's abilities) and, at higher levels, gain other channel divinity powers and more spells.

Obviously, you're welcome to your opinion, but this doesn't seem any more similar than it was in BECMI to 3e.

-KS

 

[Agamon]

Low level beta playtest PCs are similar? Are we running out of things to talk about?

 

[underfoot007ct]

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.

I thought both had armor & shield in EVERY edition ?

Both can fight with simple and martial weapons.

In several editions, mace is a simple weapon, what do you want the cleric to attack with ?
Does using martial weapons make you less of a cleric? Less devoted? Less divine?

Don't get me started on healing ability.

Since the ability to cast divine spells & heal is core of what a Cleric is, from OD&D, I can see why you want to avoid this. It makes this comparison all but pointless.

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.

A javelin can be thrown One handed & a magic quiver never runs out of arrows or bolts

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.

Yes, but vocabulary is what RPG games are. Then is there a "REAL" difference from a Magic Missile & a crossbow? Vocabulary & fluff IS what RPG games are. Theater of the mind and all that.

The fighter is a D&D Next class.
The Cleric is a D&D Next class.
The Paladin is a D&D Next class.

So now we have the Paladin, sitting right between the Fighter & the Cleric. Not a Theme but a D&D Next class. How does that fit is this in the mix?

What is it you exactly want? Fighting men & Magic Users only?

 

[grimslade]

Using Mearls suggestion and give the fighter a second theme and a little equipment shift from Great Axe to war hammer and shield, the fighter is a monster compared to the cleric. It was an eye opener to me.

The slayer fighter is the simplest of the class builds. It is the vanilla to the war priests chai. The Moradin cleric is the most fighter like cleric build. It makes sense they are similar. They are Venn diagram buddies between cleric and fighter. Paladin hangs out there too.

Side note: Fighter with two themes is too powerful. The slayer feat is pretty meh after 1st level but I assume other feats will have more staying power like guardian. Flavor aside, the combo of slayer and guardian and a room full of kobolds is disgusting.

 

[Herschel]

Yes. Yes I am.

I never played 4E, so I really can't say. I just hope the differences become more distinct between the classes, that's all. I hope there is more to a character class than the way the math is described.

I hope you are right. In the playtest, the two do not feel "different" enough to me. The same thing for the wizard and the Pelor cleric--they play very similar to each other, but with different flavor text.

How "different" does an AD&D Fighter and Cleric feel? One has a couple of CLWs and a bit smaller HD but that's about it.

 

[Kraydak]

How "different" does an AD&D Fighter and Cleric feel? One has a couple of CLWs and a bit smaller HD but that's about it.

Pre UA? You only picked up a fighter as a PC if it was a new PC, entering an established (mid-high level) party, and he came in at the same level as the previous PCs. By 7th level (extra attacks, and a respectable THAC0 advantage, and decent-to-good saves) pre-UA fighters could more-or-less hold their own.

Post UA? Fighters were the only people with any (and I mean any) purpose in melee/ranged combat other than soaking damage. With the modest exception of very high level, well equipped thieves (at the X5 backstab multiplier level, dual-wielding, you could gank a surprising amount of stuff).

I think most people on this board simply do not understand how overwhelming the 1e (post UA)/2e's offensive advantage actually was, nor that by the upper levels Fighters were the best character defensively, across the board (saves, AC, hp, you name it). And they *still* were considered an inferior class.

 

[CleverNickName]

How "different" does an AD&D Fighter and Cleric feel? One has a couple of CLWs and a bit smaller HD but that's about it.

I didn't play AD&D either. But In BECM (the other version of the game I've played), clerics can't fight with sharp weapons, they are the only class that can cast healing spells, and they are the only class that can turn the undead. Fighters* are the only class that has completely unrestricted weapon and armor use...if you use the optional Weapon Mastery rules, this was a really big deal.

Nowadays, nearly all of the classes have access to healing magic or healing equivalents. Several of them can turn the undead, and nearly all weapon restrictions are binary--either you can use martial weapons or you can't. Character classes in general, and the cleric in particular, are getting more "versatile" (read: bland) with each new edition.

I'm not calling for a return to outdated mechanics. But it would be nice if the difference between a Cleric of Pelor and a Wizard of Light was more distinct. I would like every class to feel unique in its own right, and not be just another fighter/mage combo. Maybe themes and backgrounds will help; maybe they will make them worse. Time will tell.


*And dwarves