D&D 5E (2024) CoDzilla? Yeah Na Its CoDGFaW.

[EzekielRaiden]

So....

What exactly is the difference between Cleric-or-Druid-zilla and Cleric-or-Druid-Goes-for-a-Walk?

Because both of them seem to be the open admission that spellcaster >>> non-spellcaster unless spellcaster gets nerfed by GM.

Which is precisely the balance problem D&D has been struggling with for...um...how long has D&D existed again, minus the years of The Edition That Must Not Be Named?

People keep talking about how the balance concerns are overblown etc. etc. etc., and yet I'm hearing exactly the same things I've been hearing since, like, 2002-ish. Specific types of Wizards are awesome, and require careful play but good play rewards you much, much more than any other class. Clerics and Druids, when competently played and using the spells as written, run rings around anyone else (in this case, almost literally). Fighters can only barely keep up, and that only by being giant meatsticks with little to no utility value beyond "HULK SMASH!!!"

Like, how are we not exactly where we've been for the past 25 freaking years, minus the few years where 4e actually did something different for once?

 

[Voadam]

Back in 3E the term CoDzilla was thrown around. It mostly referred to natural spell feat/overall druidic power level and a cleric using divine Metamagic to make buffs last 24/7. The cleric at least was mostly a high level theory craft build. Druid not so much it wasn't a very popular class in any event regardless of its power.

Experiences vary on that for druid.

My experience on 3e clerics being CoDzilla was not dependent on sourcebook supplement feats. Being a full caster with access to their whole spell list everyday plus full armor and d8 HD was enough. Not the biggest damage dealer (spell or immediate round weapon attacks) or constant save or die SAD builds, but really really strong. At higher levels generally being better fighters after two buffs at the same general time scry buff teleport came online was pretty big.

5e cleric spirit guardians is hugely powerful and changes the feel of the class and not in a way that supports the classical clerical themes IMO.

 

[Zardnaar]

Conjure animals might be the worst, as it is the most mobile. And at least for the others there is the bullseye effect (that is just attack the one standing in the middle).

Con save 0 damage vs wisdom save half damage.

 

[Zardnaar]

So....

What exactly is the difference between Cleric-or-Druid-zilla and Cleric-or-Druid-Goes-for-a-Walk?

Because both of them seem to be the open admission that spellcaster >>> non-spellcaster unless spellcaster gets nerfed by GM.

Which is precisely the balance problem D&D has been struggling with for...um...how long has D&D existed again, minus the years of The Edition That Must Not Be Named?

People keep talking about how the balance concerns are overblown etc. etc. etc., and yet I'm hearing exactly the same things I've been hearing since, like, 2002-ish. Specific types of Wizards are awesome, and require careful play but good play rewards you much, much more than any other class. Clerics and Druids, when competently played and using the spells as written, run rings around anyone else (in this case, almost literally). Fighters can only barely keep up, and that only by being giant meatsticks with little to no utility value beyond "HULK SMASH!!!"

Like, how are we not exactly where we've been for the past 25 freaking years, minus the few years where 4e actually did something different for once?

Its not as overpowering as 3E and you want some martials around.

Pre 3E clerics weren't that great.

Its more interesting spellcaster balance. See previous comments about fireball, wizards etc.

No one really does enough damage solo in 5.5 relative to hp.

Best gish builds are clerics and druids. They just dont use weapons (well they might but not required).

 

[Zardnaar]

Experiences vary on that for druid.

My experience on 3e clerics being CoDzilla was not dependent on sourcebook supplement feats. Being a full caster with access to their whole spell list everyday plus full armor and d8 HD was enough. Not the biggest damage dealer (spell or immediate round weapon attacks) or constant save or die SAD builds, but really really strong. At higher levels generally being better fighters after two buffs at the same general time scry buff teleport came online was pretty big.

5e cleric spirit guardians is hugely powerful and changes the feel of the class and not in a way that supports the classical clerical themes IMO.

I fid see tge persistent spell cleric in action.

Its a similar situation to CME in 5.5. If you have to hard cast it in combat its not as good as precast.

Persistent spell cleric was lvl 9 3.0. And 12+ 3.5 to be espicially good and required a lot of splat. Saw it i. 3.0, 3.5 required more effort to build it.

 

[TerraDave]

Con save 0 damage vs wisdom save half damage.

Animals is dex and 3d10 vs spirits wis 3d8 half on a save. But the cleric has to sit in the middle of spirits while the Druid has no such limit with animals.

 

[Zardnaar]

Animals is dex and 3d10 vs spirits wis 3d8 half on a save. But the cleric has to sit in the middle of spirits while the Druid has no such limit with animals.

Derp dex save.

Aware ive seen Conure Animals whiff a bit.

Clerics usually have decent AC snd a few pick up shield spell these days. Warcasters basically a no brainer.

 

[Lanefan]

So....

What exactly is the difference between Cleric-or-Druid-zilla and Cleric-or-Druid-Goes-for-a-Walk?

Because both of them seem to be the open admission that spellcaster >>> non-spellcaster unless spellcaster gets nerfed by GM.

The specific 'CoD' piece in both is saying that specific spellcasters > > > other spellcasters and martials.

In our 3e game the Cleric PC was the most powerful for a long time (because no-one played a Druid), then later when that Cleric's player left someone brought in a Druid and it immediately became the most powerful PC....helped by its player (not me!) being a bit of a powergamer at heart.

Which is precisely the balance problem D&D has been struggling with for...um...how long has D&D existed again, minus the years of The Edition That Must Not Be Named?

There's been some threads in D&D Older Editions recently where 1e (post-UA) Fighters as-written have been lauded by some as the best class in the game at the time in terms of power, damage dealing, survivability, and so forth; and IMO those claims may well be correct particularly at low-mid levels (i.e up to about 9th-ish, which was roughly where most 1e games tapped out anyway).

Casters of all kinds in 1e had to deal with much harsher rules around interruption, which if nothing else made them way less reliable than martials in any sort of fog-of-war situation. They were also much squishier than their more recent counterparts, meaning some of their spells (assuming some player and-or character wisdom) would want to go toward self-defense rather than all to offense or utility. And Cleric types were expected to save most of their spells for healing.

People keep talking about how the balance concerns are overblown etc. etc. etc., and yet I'm hearing exactly the same things I've been hearing since, like, 2002-ish. Specific types of Wizards are awesome, and require careful play but good play rewards you much, much more than any other class. Clerics and Druids, when competently played and using the spells as written, run rings around anyone else (in this case, almost literally). Fighters can only barely keep up, and that only by being giant meatsticks with little to no utility value beyond "HULK SMASH!!!"

Like, how are we not exactly where we've been for the past 25 freaking years, minus the few years where 4e actually did something different for once?

Agreed, the WotC era has somewhat hammered martials. 3e also reined in arcane casters a bit (relative to what they could have been!) but forgot to rein in Clerics and - mostly by removing restrictions - gave both types a bunch of advantages they didn't have in the TSR era. In reaction to this, 4e tried to bring everyone closer to the same and - typical for WotC design - completely overdid it. 5e tried for a middle ground with results that might best be termed hit and miss: they fixed some things while breaking others.

WotC now are also having to design around a slow but steady change in player attitudes* that they (WotC) themselves are to blame for: they spent too much time catering to player complaints rather than holding firm, and not enough time listening to DMs.

* - an easy example here is that hitting in combat used to be seen as good and missing seen as acceptable while hitting is now seen as normal and missing is seen as unacceptable.