Is the Cleric class broken/unbalanced?

[TroyXavier]

A good party needs:
A fighter type(Fighter/Paladin/Psychic Warrior/Barbarian)
A Rogue/Point character(Bard/Monk/Ranger/Rogue)
A diviner caster(Cleric/Druid)
An arcane spellcaster(Psion/Sorceror/Wizard)

 

[KnowTheToe]

Clerics ain't broke.

Most cleric players cast spells to benefit the party. I have recently started playing one and and I have yet to cast a single spell on myself. I am not the expert combatant our fighter or Paladin is, my spells do not unleash the same fury as the wizard, I do not have the flexability of the rogue nor the charm of our Bard.

My goal has not been to min max the character and I look forward to continueing in my role. Anyway is there really a better iconic than a Dwarven cleric?

 

[Bob5th]

I don't find my cleric to be overpowered. He has some good party spells and can defend himself in a fight but he's not great at taking the fight to the enemy. And for the record he never memorizes a cure spell just converts them.

 

[The Serge]

The Cleric is what you make it.

Well, here's my position on the Cleric class.

It is not broken or unbalanced... no more so than someone who's perfected playing a fighter, or the eternal Wizard-player who's memorized every spell in every resource. The Cleric, like any other class, is what you make it.

The inclusion of Domains has also made the Cleric very customizable. As someone else noted, Clerics generally don't have access to a lot of skills. But, by taking the right Domains to fulfill the proper worship of a given deity broadens the Cleric's access. The lack of feats forces the player to be very aware of his/her goals with the cleric. It's possible to have two Clerics worshipping the same god, with the same Domains, handled completely differently due to feat selection. One may be all about getting into combat, chosing Weapon Focus, Improved Critical, and Expertise (to gain the Spring Attack line), while another will select Spell Focus, Reach Spell, and Sacred spell.

Sure, the Cleric has access to a lot of spells, especially compared to the Cleric of 1ed and 2ed. But, many of the more dangerous spells (like harm) require touch attacks, which put the Cleric at risk when attacking large creatures with reach.

As for a player deciding to use certain kinds of spells, and why they use certain spells... Well, how is this any different from any other spellcaster? If there is a CN Cleric who likes combat and couldn't care less about his/her collegues, it stands to reason that the spells s/he casts will only benefit teammates as a secondary purpose.

I'm TIRED of conversations that imply that one class is better than another, or that one class is broken at the expense of others. Even the Bard, when used effectively, can be a terror in a game. The Bard can heal, Charm (some of the best spells out there are Charm spells), bolster allies through song, adversely impact adversaries through Charm, and have access to a wealth of very valuable in-game information. That's a lot and I think it's great. Sure, it may not be flashy on the front-end, but in the hands of an imaginative and intelligent player, a Bard can seriously impact a game, just like a Fighter, a Wizard, and a Rogue.

And a Cleric.

 

[John Crichton]

believe it or not...

I voted no, BTW.

In my 10+ years of DM-ing not a single player has made a PC cleric. Not even multiclass! Going all the way back to 2e. So I haven't had any experience DM-ing for clerics. I have run for druids & paladins but it's not the same.

I have played a few, 2 in 2e and one in 3e. The 2e version was much less fun I have to say and I didn't blame anyone for not wanting to play one. The cleric I played in no way unbalanced the game.

Here's the way I see it: If your cleric wants the other members of the party to live, he'll be burning at least 1/3 of his spells on healing. This limits his "buffing" ability severely. Sure, you could not heal others and focus on making a battle cleric but most likely see members of your party dying around you.

Having a cleric around is one of the sure fire ways to negate a critical hit by a monster. Sure bards, paladins, mid-LV rangers and druids can do some healing but those classes typically use their spells for things other than healing to be effective.

Honestly, it's a bad DM that lets a player go buck-wild and make an overpower cleric, or any character/class combo. I've read about combos that can let a cleric be on equal footing with a fighter/barbarian of the same level. This is all fine and good if that's what the character has been designed for and has access to all these things.

But, it's the DM's responsibility to make sure things are balanced. You bet that if a PC of mine ever pulled one of these combos that there would be an NPC out there with something similar. It all comes down to the DM in the end.

Just my humble take.

 

[Nifft]

I do some heavy houseruling on the Cleric, to make it more flavorful and less generic. They lose Heavy and Medium Armor proficency and most lose spontaneous healing, but get better Domain powers -- and if they took the Healing domain, they get spontaneous healing.

-- Nifft

 

[John Crichton]

Re: The Cleric is what you make it.

I'm TIRED of conversations that imply that one class is better than another, or that one class is broken at the expense of others. Even the Bard, when used effectively, can be a terror in a game. The Bard can heal, Charm (some of the best spells out there are Charm spells), bolster allies through song, adversely impact adversaries through Charm, and have access to a wealth of very valuable in-game information. That's a lot and I think it's great. Sure, it may not be flashy on the front-end, but in the hands of an imaginative and intelligent player, a Bard can seriously impact a game, just like a Fighter, a Wizard, and a Rogue.

Well said!

I have played a 3e bard that was the badass of the group. No one wanted to mess with him. The classes, heck, the game is what you make it. That's what makes it so fun. The shades of gray. Nothing is really black and white...

 

[Melkor Lord Of ALL!]

Other options:

-Reduce spell list depending on the Deity, for example Boccob wouldn`t grant Righteous Might.

-And I see nothing wrong in making a separate Class for every God, you don`t have to make one for every God in Pantheon, just one for party Cleric and several for enemy Clerics.

 

[Carnifex]

I don't think clerics are unbalanced, but I do think they're quite flexible in how you play them; you can have the type of cleric who is absolutely dedicated to buffing the party as a whole, or - as I intend to play soon in a new campaign - one who is capable of turning himself into a rock-hard front line fighter. I like the Metal domain, so with that and Strength he's going to be a hammer-wielding, skull-cracking, doesn't take crap from anyone and certainly doesn't heal you if you piss him off type of cleric; focusing his spells largely on battle and mostly on ones that he can benefit himself with (and others too if its advantageous). True neutral, a fierce temper anda big hammer!

I do lvoe the domains system. Speciality priests from 2e were a nice idea but executed incredibly badly - so many that I saw were just insanely broken, giving massive advantages left, right and centre. I reckon domains was a big step in the right direction.

 

[The Serge]

There's no reason to change anything.

I advocate not changing anything for the Cleric, personally.

The spontaneous curing spells are effective because they are a nod to the divine miracle aspect of the Cleric. The Cleric can pray to help out someon in need... or pray to scar an infidel/heretic, using prepared prayers to power the miracle. I think this a great change to the class.

The Domains add enough of a flavor to the class, IMO. Like many, I was initially not pleased with the loss of the specialty cleric. Now, I don't see the problem. First, a DM should ensure that the god has the right Domains in order for the potential players to get an understanding of the kind of power they represent. Second, the DM should be clear as to what kind of behavior the god expects. This is nothing different from earlier D&D incarnations. Third, create PrCs if it's that important to have more flavor. Allow the cleric to enter the PrC after 3rd level.

I don't think the Cleric or any other class needs changes, other than those designed to solidify distinctions between classes. Monte Cook's Bard, Ranger, and Sorcerer are examples of the latter in that they clarify what a Bard is, why a Ranger is not as effective as a Fighter, and why Sorcerers are different from Wizards. But, as they are in the PH, I think the classes are fine (just not all that original).