[3.0]compare these two clerics (power-wise)

[reapersaurus]

In 3.5, it's no contest -
archery has been powered down, and with the new Power Attack alone, a melee cleric is stronger.

With the STR buffs of the Mighty Contender, it's be fun to Rage and just smash people, since for each +1 in STR bonus, you'd effectively get +2.5 damage from Power Attack + 2 handed damage.

 

[ashockney]

From the perspective of having played a cleric...go the archer route in either edition, because of the Travel domain. In general, you will probably be better off building as a good "position" and "heal/blast" caster, instead of a melee'er. This will really cause more pain than it's worth from Level 7 on up. Your healing and blasting will be much more effective, in general, than anything you could do in melee. Particularly given HOW MANY resources it would take to acheive "full buffiness". Save it, and blow it on more heals and blast spells. The travel will give you nice mobility.

I caveat all of the above assuming you have a somewhat "normal" five-person party. If you want a good tank, I'd recommend going the Clr/Pal route instead.

 

[reapersaurus]

If you want a good tank, I'd recommend going the Clr/Pal route instead.

What synergy is there between a cleric and a paladin?!

And how would it make an effective tank? (tanks usually have lots of hit points and/or are hard to hit, or have techniques which give them advantages in melee combat)

 

[Darklone]

What synergy is there between a cleric and a paladin?!

And how would it make an effective tank? (tanks usually have lots of hit points and/or are hard to hit, or have techniques which give them advantages in melee combat)

Easy. I had both bbn1/clericX and pal1-3/clericX in my group.

The pal mix was tougher. Better saves (though 3.5 changed that perhaps), yet many hitpoints, heavy armour (the barbarian needed medium). High Charisma combined with Divine Might made for good turning as well as good melee. But even before he had Divine Might (took it late), the barbarian was lots more likely to go down.

As for the amount of hitpoints: Paladins lay on hands (assuming a singleclass paladin now) combined with his generally higher AC than a barbarian made him usually the last man standing.

Dwarven pal cleric is a save monster. You lose some Cha, but gain the racial bonus.

 

[ashockney]

Easy. I had both bbn1/clericX and pal1-3/clericX in my group.

The pal mix was tougher. Better saves (though 3.5 changed that perhaps), yet many hitpoints, heavy armour (the barbarian needed medium). High Charisma combined with Divine Might made for good turning as well as good melee. But even before he had Divine Might (took it late), the barbarian was lots more likely to go down.

As for the amount of hitpoints: Paladins lay on hands (assuming a singleclass paladin now) combined with his generally higher AC than a barbarian made him usually the last man standing.

Dwarven pal cleric is a save monster. You lose some Cha, but gain the racial bonus.

Yeah, what he said!

Great AC (buffable to be even worse), Great Saves (huge for a good tank, nice to see they addressed this somewhat with the Barb in 3.5), turning is ridiculous in case nobody noticed, and the ability to use cleric magic items (like all those cure wands).

Depending on how lucky you are with your stats, you can even do decent melee, but this typically isn't their forte. Stand there and take it while your rogue and sorcerer friends demolish everything, is more the order of the day. Then heal everyone back up when it's all over.

 

[Bobbystopholes]

I play a 12th level cleric in Living Greyhawk who is an archer. With GMW, etc, he was doing 3 arrows a round at about 1d8+15 or so, that damage is decreased quite a bit when the conversion hits. A way that I am compensating it (hopefully) is by having Quickened Spell and preparing a +4 Divine Favor in a 5th level slot. That +4 to attacks and damage is sick. The only thing I lose is a feat and no spell slots (it takes up the extended GMW I had for the arrows). New power attack is sick, but the archers can still keep up

 

[reapersaurus]

ashockney and Darklone - this isn't worth spending much time on, but what you just described (other than the saves) doesn't show how a cleric/Pal mix is better for a tank than a Ftr/Clr.

Trust me, I know paladins and how they multiclass with Clerics as opposed to Fighter/Clr.
Other than higher saves (which arguably is not a tanks function), a Ftr/Clr is better in every way.

Let's look at how a Pal/Clr is worse than a Ftr/Clr
* AC, Pal is worse, due to DEX being one of the only dump stats for a Pal. Straight Clr is best due to buffing and armor spells. Ftr has extra feats to improve AC.
* HP's, a Pal is worse than a Ftr, due to Ftr being able to use a better attribute score for CON. Clr has MUCH more healing than Pal, so Lay on Hands is almost useless in this comparison.
* Both can use heavy armor.
* Divine Might is not a Paladin-only feat. Why do people continue to connect the two? Divine Might rocks for a Clr/Ftr, and the Ftr actually has the extra feats to spend.

So this is what I knew when you said "Clr/Pal makes a good tank."
You can see why I pointed out their lack of synergy between the 2 for that intended purpose.

Now that that's clear, we return you to our regularly scheduled thread, about melee vs ranged clerics in 3.0/3.5.

 

[Gilrion]

With the fharlanghn cleric, you might want to consider using a quarterstaff. If you use Defenders of the Faith, you can use Brambles and Spikes to great effect in melee. Using it effectively costs 2 feats unfortunately, but it might be worth considering.

As someone playing a cleric of Shaundakul (fharlanghn's FR counterpart) I vote for the archer, if only for the Travel domain. Gotta love Teleport

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I play a 12th level cleric in Living Greyhawk who is an archer. With GMW, etc, he was doing 3 arrows a round at about 1d8+15 or so, that damage is decreased quite a bit when the conversion hits. A way that I am compensating it (hopefully) is by having Quickened Spell and preparing a +4 Divine Favor in a 5th level slot. That +4 to attacks and damage is sick. The only thing I lose is a feat and no spell slots (it takes up the extended GMW I had for the arrows). New power attack is sick, but the archers can still keep up

Quicken is nice. After I dropped Persistent Spell, I picked up Quicken spell. I usually have Divine Power and Divine Favor quickened, and the Char has Quick Draw. So I can have a full attack in the first round and still buff my self up a little, or buff myself up with two critical spells in the first round (losing more than that to buffs isn't good, especially if you could not prepare prior to combat).

 

[Darklone]

Other than higher saves (which arguably is not a tanks function), a Ftr/Clr is better in every way.

Here's probably where we disagree, reaper... I'm usually playing with big groups (8-10 people) with four or more frontliners. Good saves keep the tanks in battle, IMC the paladin was nearly always the last man between the archers/spellslingers and the enemy.

Let's look at how a Pal/Clr is worse than a Ftr/Clr
* AC, Pal is worse, ...Ftr has extra feats to improve AC.
* HP's, a Pal is worse than a Ftr...
* Both can use heavy armor.
* Divine Might

*The paladins I saw had the same AC as fighters, those extra feats for AC ... which ones? Dodge?
* Paladins in my group put main stat on Cha, second best on Con... so they ended up with the same hitpoints as the fighter (who put the best in strength). This may be different with point buy groups.
* yeah, both use heavy armour. What's the matter ?
* In 3.5, Divine might is worse for paladins... but IMC they make up for the level 4 turn undead with enourmous charisma.

So this is what I knew when you said "Clr/Pal makes a good tank."
You can see why I pointed out their lack of synergy between the 2 for that intended purpose.

I agree that the paladin levels don't help a clr/pal much in respect of healing, turning, whatever. Biggest advantage are higher saves and weapon proficiencies.

Ftr/clr has one feat more (usually) and tower shield proficiency. He'll probably has a better strength too.

As I experienced it till now, the paladins usually caused less damage than a fighter, but were nearly never incapacitated by spells.

Now that that's clear, we return you to our regularly scheduled thread, about melee vs ranged clerics in 3.0/3.5.

Coming back... In this case, the ftr/clr might be superior for a ranged cleric since those guys seldom have to have high saves and he might need the feats. The melee cleric should ask himself if he needs to dish out more damage (strength=> fighter) or stand longer (charisma=> paladin).