Drop-kicking the fighter classes...


log in or register to remove this ad

You'd probably have quite a functional group if you replaced fighter types with clerics. However there are some weaknesses you'd have to compensate for.

1. Damage dealing capacity. Fighter's don't have to worry about wisdom so they can make strength a higher priority in stat selection. Fighters also have more feats--including weapons specialization (babarians have rage which increases attack and damage). Finally, fighters have higher attack bonusses, which, combined with power attack will usually enable them to deal even more damage.

Compensation: Divine Might will help high charisma clerics deal damage (only in a high stat game though--otherwise you're better off putting the high stat in strength so you can have good damage all the time). Divine Favor, Bull's Strength, Divine Power, and Righteous Might will all help even the damage dealing capacity.

2. Damage soaking capacity. So the one or two hp/level difference between a fighter and a cleric isn't much. It will add up though. Furthermore, fighter types can afford to have higher armor classes than clerics. Sure they both wear the same armor but a fighter typically has a higher dexterity. Clerics also need a free hand to cast spells--this typically precludes the use of shields. Especially when the enemy needs 16s or higher to hit, two points of AC can amount to a 25% difference in the amount of damage taken.

Compensation: Magic Vestment, Shield of Faith, and Endurance will help even things up.

3. Power up time. A fighter type starts dealing damage in round 1. In order to equal the fighter, a cleric needs to start by casting buffing spells. By the time he's done buffing, the battle could very well have been over. Since many monsters dish out massive amounts of damage very quickly, this could be a critical difference. (You really want to take down trolls and girrallons, etc before they rend and not after). The party of clerics could end up even shorter on healing than the mixed party.

Compensation: Be willing to go into a fight with only long-term buffs up.

4. Versatility. The fighting classes can have as many as 18 feats or multiple rages and uncanny dodge, etc. Clerics will probably be lucky to complete two feat chains by 20th level. Furthermore, fighting classes have proficiency in all martial weapons. Clerics with the war domain are proficient in one martial weapon. When the party is fighting a flyby attacking creature, the difference between the fighter's backup mighty [+4] composite longbow and the cleric's light crossbow is immense. If the fighter has weapon focus, and some archery feats, the difference becomes even larger.

Compensation: Clerics can compensate by taking ranged attack spells (produce flame if they have fire domain, searing light, etc.) Clerics can also use spells (like Zeal from DotF) to substitute for feats (Zeal would be a fairly good substitute for mobility in some situations).

On the whole, I'm pretty sure that a party with clerics replacing the fighting classes could work but it would take some skillful character construction. Given that, it would probably be at least as effective in a situation with time to prepare but less effective than a standard party in an unexpected combat.
 

Greetings!

Elder-Basilisk, very well said! I agree completely!:)

Rounser, I think that you have made some good point though. While a party of clerics are indeed quite powerful, and offer more *boom* than fighters, per se, I think that without fighters, the party would be lacking in the ultimate flexibility, even if in specific instances the party of clerics would be superior. I wonder sometimes about the power of cleric/fighter characters, as they seem to have almost the right synthesis of power, feats, and flexibility.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
 

I wonder sometimes about the power of cleric/fighter characters, as they seem to have almost the right synthesis of power, feats, and flexibility.
According to the WotC min/maxer's board, Fighter/Cleric is substandard because (according to them) you want every level of cleric you can scrounge for spell escalation reasons. I'm not so sure, but it makes sense on the surface - once you reach mid-level, 2 levels of fighter you took way back when hurts spell progression rather badly.

I think they also worked out the optimal number of fighter levels to take in order to min/max benefits (2 or 4 at a guess, but I can't recall correctly).
 
Last edited:

The biggest problem with fighters is they have a 'flat' progression.

That is, a Fighter 16>17th level is not a tremendously different jump than, say, 2>3.

True, a fighter accumulates a heap of feats, and has a few perks (weapon specialization, broad proficiencies, etc)

A cleric, on the other hand, going from 16>17th level gets some mighty magics. Sure, his BAB is 5 less, and he doesn't have the huge wack of feats... but 9th level spells? Yeek. And _two_ good saves.

Personally, I think there is a big problem, when you look at fighter progression vs. other classes. I also think there is a big problem with spellcaster progression. Unfortunately, it really looks like spellcasters should never multiclass (except with prestige classes that add directly to caster level). Now, fighters, rangers, and rogues, cool. A fighter with a few levels of spellcaster, also cool.

In short, I agree, particularly at higher levels. (6+?)

-=Will
 

Well one problem with that view with spellcasters at least is that you're taking the levels in arcane spellcasters for the damage dealing benefits.

At least with Arcane, it's more than viable to take just a few levels so you have low level utility spell access (to say, Shield, Grease, SpiderClimb, Invis). The Rogue/Sorc is a fun example of that.

With cleric, I'll concede they lack as much generic utility magic (and you tend to want to be able to have effective cures if you have any levels in cleric), and might be more inclined to suggest a Druid/fighter/whatever multiclass instead for some more utility spell access (And different ability subset), that hurts you a bit though in armor/weapon selection. (From a Min/Max point of view)

Although if you want to be a 'spellcaster', it's best to focus on being a spellcaster. Sacrificing spellcasting ability for what is usually a temporary boost in combat skills isn't a good idea.
 

By fifteenth level the cleric will absolutely kick the fighters arse. The fighter has feats, but Divine Favor and Divine Power will give the cleric the edge. Points:

1) Cleric needs only 12 WIS. He'll boost it to 18 or 20 with items / books

2) Divine Favor (Quickened or persistent) equals out with specialization. (At 15th level +5/+5, it's way better, actually)

3) Divine power (quickened or persistent) get's the BAB's equal.

4) Triple empowered endurance & Bull's Strength mean some heavy-ass damage

5) A dozen buffing spells that can make you hard to kill (Death Ward, Protection from elements etc.)

6) Greater Magic weapon & Magic Vestment.

7) FULL CLERIC SPELLCASTING on top of your fighting skills that are already superior to fighters.

8) Less feats, though you'll get some more from domains (war is a must)

9) At high levels the party has to rest after about three fights anyway, so you'll have enough spells

10) I've seen all of the above in action. It works.

Remember though that at levels about 1-8 you'll have to play the party cleric, but after that it's all about the ass-kicking.
 

I agree that a Cleric with several Persistant buffs and several more long-term buffs can outdo a Fighter in the short term. However, hit each one with a targeted Greater Dispelling and THEN see who wins that melee battle!
 

I play a Pal/Clr

With a level of paladin, I ended up not even needing the war domain. (I was playing a module where I picked up a "cursed" which switched my god of Tyr (war, retribution) to Lathander (Renewal, Strength)). I buff the fighter and myself every 8 hours or so. Sometimes I'm not buffed, but I always have spells to cast.

The cleric makes a reasonable substitute. But, you can cast buffs and by the point the fighter can pick up items to buff himself. Gloves of Ogre Strength and such. So, your buffing isn't a big factor. (And you can't use the same trick, since it doesn't stack.)

A good cleric can easily fill the slot, but the fighter is always a joy to have in the party. Especially a well optimized one.
 

Fighters make much, much better archers.

Most parties I've seen have more fighters and multiclass fighters than cleric though... and that is perhaps the problem. Healing is good, but if you only have one cleric, that is all he's doing basicaly. Look at the story hours... the defenders of daybreak and the company of... darn it... sagiro's story hour... anyway, both those parties have several clerics, single and multi class,in them and they do exedingly well.

In comparaison, our party, wich has about the same number of characters (we have 7) has 1 fighter, 1 fighter rogue, 1 rogue ranger, 1 bard, 2 wizards (1 evok, 1 transmuter) and one cleric. Sure, we kick ass in combat, but damn it we're runing around at half HP most of the time.

Ancalagon
 

Remove ads

Top