Drop-kicking the fighter classes...

[rounser]

...and replacing them with clerics with the War domain, and related combat domains (Strength, Elf etc).

It's a hypothesis I've been thinking about: The difference in BAB can be made up for with buffing spells, especially by mid-level, and especially if you take that feat from the FRCS that lets your buffs go on all day. The difference in HP is more or less an illusion beyond the span of a single encounter because of the sheer amount of healing spells the party has access to. The only true compromise I can see is that fighter types can pour all their ability scores into STR and CON, whereas a fighting cleric would probably want to go for WIS and STR in roughly equal proportions. And there's no difference in armour.

Long term, I think a party with clerics in place of their "fighter slots" would probably be more effective, and the party would be more likely to survive overall. Fighting feats are a fine thing, yet healing, buffs and other spells can pick up that slack and then some. Better yet, the clerics would be poring their healing power primarily into their own characters, alleviating the "take one for the team" factor somewhat.

Is there merit to this, or am I way off base?

 

[Nightfall]

I like it. But then I'm a fan of clerics. Besides you can replace fighters with warriors, who although not as good as fighters, ARE a good fighting class in some situations.

Though I do think fighter clerics are somewhat better than clerics overall. But then I'm a big fan of Galdor.

 

[Uller]

I play a 6th Level Dwarf Cleric with War and Earth Domains. And yes, I can give the fighter types quite a run for their money. If I can cast spells, I can definatly take more of a beating than any fighter of comparible level would ever dream of(especially if I had cast Endurance and got 4 or 5 Con from it, giving me a 24 or 25 con!!

However, there are two problems with your theory:

1) BAB and iterative attacks. Once I get Divine Power at 7th level, this will not be as much of an issue, but the fact is, the party barbarian can get many more attacks than I can in most battles, especially because of...

2) You have to take time to cast your buffing spells. You don't always have 4 or 5 rounds prior to a battle to get totally maxed out(and even if you do, you may not want to waste all your buff spells on one fight). So while with a 3 or more buff spells I can usually outshine the barbarian(or fighter if you have one), the fact is, in MOST fights, I either don't have time to cast too many buffing spells or I don't want to because I need to save some for later (and because my comrades seem to think I should heal them every once in a while. )

Plus there is the problem you pointed out: You need a decent Wisdom(and Cha). I sunk my highest stats in CON, WIS and STR, in that order. So I've only a 14 strenght. Bull's Strength is usually in place so I can count on a 16-19 most of the time, but a well placed Dispel Magic has removed that more than once.

 

[rounser]

Good points Uller - the iterative attacks thing would indeed be missed. It's a payoff between giving the monsters more time to hurt you, or being able to heal more of what they do, I guess. On the balance, though, I think you have the right of it - offense is the best defense.

I think that magic items could offset the either/or of buff and heal spells, and perhaps if you took just a single fighter-type, they could hold off the hordes in the 10 foot wide corridor until your clerics were up to speed - or perhaps the clerics could iterate between one fighting, one buffing/healing from round to round. You'd need good concentration though, especially when surrounded by enemies, as fighters often are.

 

[TroyXavier]

Fighting clerics are good in one-on-one situations, but I'd rather have the fighter in a multiple opponent vs me.

 

[Xarlen]

Also, the Fighter has one thing on clerics.

Feats.

The cleric only gets 7 feats, and that's total. The fighter gets 18.

The fighter's flexibility is the fact that you can have him customized no matter how you like it. Big bruiser, dextrous fencer, deadshot archer, mounted master.

That's why a fighter can hold up beside a barbarian, who still only gets the same amount as the cleric.

Edit: And, you know, it's sort've like pigeonholing someone to take a cleric. Once you get too many, most people won't Like them.

A lot don't like spells, or the cleric's abilities, no matter how powerful. Yes, they can take a barbarian or a ranger, but you're taking away an element that they want. The customized Fighter. I suspect your problem being no one wants to play a cleric. That doesn't mean give another class arcane powers to offer artillery, since no one wants to play a mage or sorceror.

 

[rounser]

I suspect your problem being no one wants to play a cleric. That doesn't mean give another class arcane powers to offer artillery, since no one wants to play a mage or sorceror.

Not really. I'm just floating the idea of whether a party with clerics in place of fighters would have higher effectiveness long term. I mean:

1) Who needs clerics most of all? The fighters.
2) Which non-fighter class has had their combat ability boosted most of all in 3E? Arguably the clerics and rogues.

When you put those two together, it made me wonder - could we cut out the middle man, and let the clerics themselves do the clobbering? That way the "fighters" could look after their own HP total, without leaning on someone else's character.

With carefully chosen domains, spells, ability scores, feats and the right investment in the right magic items, I think the possibility may be there for clerics to usurp that role, and potentially end up with a more effective party overall.

 

[Vaxalon]

If you cast buffing spells on a cleric, you get a fighter.

What do you get if you cast buffing spells on a fighter?

 

[Xarlen]

Rounser, we meet again.

Don't you think this is putting a lot of Pressure on the Cleric class, though?

If I want to do Any sort've combat damage in melee, I have to play a cleric. Or be a rogue and get killed. That sounds pigeonholing, to me.

Wizards need help from party members, else they'd get bowled over. Rogues... well, they're support, not front men. Bards... They're an entire party smacked into one, just weaker at what they do.

Are you dousing the Paladin? Really, a paladin is a more specialized fighting cleric. If you change their aligment restriction, and strip just a little power From them, then they'd be a good way to go, no? You can heal, you can cast a few (but not Grand) buff spells, and you can lay the smack down.

I remember someone on the board mentioning making a Priest (Light combat divine spellcaster) and a Prophet (Healer/Undead turner/fighter). Now, I don't know How you'd pull off a Priest, given you're taking the healing magic away.

 

[Xarlen]

If you cast buffing spells on a cleric, you get a fighter.

What do you get if you cast buffing spells on a fighter?

Cheap Tenser's Transformation?