Clerics? Pontificate!

Which cleric is better?


da_deadman

First Post
I have seen much talk about melee clerics and ranged clerics and caster clerics, how do each of these templates work in relation to the design role of the cleric within the party?

Does a melee/ranged cleric force more the other party spell casters to be focus more strictly on spell casting? or make encounters with undead harder due to lack of charisma?

What about a caster cleric forcing the party "meat" to do more then usual grunt work? or edge out the other casters from their functions of "artillery"?

I would like to see each of the templates and their role within the party and thus the effect they have on how the party will get things done.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


beaver1024 said:
You're making the critical mistake of assuming that there is only ever going to be 1 cleric in the party.

That is just an assumption.

The prototypical party will have 1-3 fighter types, 1 cleric, 1 magic-user and 1 rogue for balance reasons.

I am sure that 4-6 of any character types could be a valid party, but not the most viable or balanced.
 
Last edited:

I answered CASTER... but the poll is not too specific about "better".

I say for the group... a CASTER is better. He pumps the fighter types better than his melee skills up front would help in the long run.

In a small group... combat clerics are preferable.
 

I chose balanced, because a cleric will never know when a situation will arrise when he's needed to fill another roll.

I happen to play in the Living Greyhawk RPGA campaign and have a cleric. This cleric fills the roll of tank in the group I game with the most, but when playing online or at conventions, he's capable of taking on the roll of archer or caster, depending on what the party needs.

In a home campaign, I believe that the cleric player should be the last person to create their character to see what would be of most benefit to the party.
 

3.5 really changed the equations on clerics. In 3.0, a non-casting focussed cleric could blow a lot of his/her spells on long duration buffs, do her thing in combat, and heal people with wands afterward. In 3.5, there aren't nearly so many long-duration buffs (and the ones that are there aren't as useful) so clerics who want to make use of their spellcasting capabilities will spend more time casting in combat.

That said, I've played or played with most types of clerics:

Archer clerics: I played one in Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. She was incredibly effective as an offensive damage dealer for the party. However, as an archer, she generally tried to stay away from the front lines. This was sometimes problematic if all the chips went down and someone needed a healing spell. Fortunately, she wore light armor and, having buffed the party beforehand, didn't often need to do combat healing.

Melee clerics: I've played games with some of these guys around. They're handy to have in a fight but not as handy as a lot of people think they are. If they need several rounds to buff, the fight will often be over by the time they start going. If they use Quicken Spell to reduce that time, they're offensively effective, but tend to burn through their spells pretty quickly. Also, being tied down on the front line can keep such characters from getting to where their comrades need healing even more so than being an archer and staying away from the front line. For a party without a real front-line fighter, however, a melee cleric is a good substitute.

Spellcasting clerics: My main character's cohort in Living Arcanis is a spellcasting focussed cleric. She makes good use of the options she has to be effective but again, focussing on offensive spells can run her out of healing spells quite quickly. Fortunately, she can make scrolls to augment her prepared spells. The other weakness of such characters is that they work much better in larger groups 5-7 characters than smaller ones where everyone could end up on the front line at a moment's notice. (This is probably true of archer clerics as well).

Balanced clerics: My secondary Living Greyhawk character is a balanced cleric (slight melee focus but not too much). I think this is the best kind of cleric to be most party's only cleric--especially for small (4 or less characters) parties. The ability to step up and reinforce the front line when needed is very helpful. And not feeling obligated to charge into combat at the drop of an initiative die frees such characters up to support the party as needed. However, if there's more than one cleric in the party, I'd be tempted to go for a spellcasting cleric and a battle cleric or a melee cleric and an archer cleric instead of two balanced clerics. The strengths of the balanced clerics shine most when they're the only cleric in the party and need to fill multiple roles. Similarly weaknesses of specialty clerics are felt the least when there are multiple clerics in the party.
 

My answer would be, the cleric class is broken, and embodies an archtype that doesnt really exist outside DnD and so should be done away with :D :eek: :p
 

Remove ads

Top