Is the Cleric class broken/unbalanced?

[Saeviomagy]

I believe that, from a purely mechanical viewpoint, the cleric is broken. I don't believe that mechanics should be balanced by roleplaying concerns (because they vary from campaign to campaign)

I believe that for the following reasons:
1. A cleric's spellcasting is (at the very least) on a par with the spellcasting of a mage. Each has strengths and weaknesses, but the cleric is not a significantly worse caster. This takes into account the ability of a cleric to miss out on sleep, cast in armour, spontaneously cast and always have access to almost all the spells on their list, along with the actual spells present on the list.

2. The ability of a mage to have a familiar is as much a hindrance as a help.

3. The cleric gets a number of non-spellcasting perks: Twice the HPs, 1 1/2 times the BAB, and extra 'good' save, armour feats, weapon feats, turning, plus domain abilities. The wizard gets 5 bonus feats spread over 20 levels. I don't feel that these equal out.

4. The cleric skill list is only fractionally worse than the wizard spell list.

5. A clerics casting stat affects their will saves. A wizard's casting stat affects their skill ranks. The balance goes to the wizard here.

6. A cleric loses only the potential to turn high-level undead if he takes a prestige class giving +1 spellcaster levels. A wizard loses feats, and his familiar becomes even more of a burden.

I believe that these qualities represent the best possible combination of minimal disadvantages and maximum advantages. The cleric character attains the same level of power as a high level wizard with none of the drawbacks present in playing a wizard. If I proposed a character class which was a wizard, with high damage spells like fireball, cone of cold and horrid wilting removed from his list, who could cast in armour, got a 3/4 BAB, and had 2 good saves, I'd be immediately branded as a munchkin with good reason, and I've only given him half the benefits the cleric has.

I think that ONE of the following should be done:
1. Replace the current cleric with a class much closer to the mage. Same spell list (possibly even improve it slightly. Slightly) Hps 1d4, no armour proficiency, minimal weapon proficiency, one good save, turning, spontaeneous healing. Extra spellcasting feats at higher levels. If you want to play the current cleric, you would simply have to multiclass between this class and fighter.

2. Institute a rigid system for determining a cleric's standing with his god. If anyone here has seen the rules from EarthDawn for handling questors, that's similar to what I'd use.
Essentially the cleric would have some sort of 'faithfulness' score which would regulate the level of powers he currently has access to. If he acts according to his faith, he gains points. If he acts contrary to his faith (even through inaction) he loses points.
For instance, a cleric of pelor would gain points for going out of his way to destroy undead, and would lose points for suffering them to live. A cleric of travel would gain points for going on long journeys, and assisting travellers, and would lose points for settling down, ignoring travellers in need etc.
The greater the deed/misdeed, the greater the adjustment in points.
Points adjustments would occur regardless of the consequences to the cleric. If the cleric of pelor above was to refrain from attacking undead on the grounds that he would almost certainly be killed, then he is showing a weakness in his faith. He will lose points. There is nothing stopping him from gaining them back later through multiple minor acts.
The type of acts that the cleric's faith requires would be based upon which domains the cleric has. Hence even a godless cleric (the ultimate munchkin tool) would be required to follow the tenets of his faith or risk losing his spellcasting abilities.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Point 4 should read that the clerics skill list is only slightly worse than the wizards SKILL list

 

[Zerovoid]

"As for parties without a Rogue, you will need a good Search skill and some scouting abilities. A Ranger is good enough, or any Elf with Cosmopolitan or somesuch. There are many ways of dealing with traps once they are located."

Err... correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that for traps with a search DC greater than 20 (that is to say almost all of them), ONLY a rouge could successfully search for them. (Dwarves are a slight exception.)

Well, you're right about the DC 20 thing, so after about level 3, you need a rogue to disarm traps if you are going to encounter them. Most campaigns that I've played and run have very little in the way of traps, and the few traps that do exist tend to be of a magical nature that can be dealt with by reasoning and spells.

I've never encountered, say a 100ft pit trap filled with spikes, or a crushing cieling, for example. If you do play in a campain that is heavy on these (imho) boring type traps, then just have you ranger take one level of rogue, and the problem is solved.

 

[Gizzard]

I believe that, from a purely mechanical viewpoint, the cleric is broken.

The points here are pretty solid. The Cleric is able to do a lot of stuff; he is a top-notch spellcaster and, if push comes to shove, a decent fighter. He can go both offensive and defensive, and really doesnt have to give up anything in order to do it.

Besides that, he's very flexible and relatively easy to play; its easy for a beginning player to make a very useful Cleric; while that is not true of several other classes. But, as the recent Game of Death showed, Cleric is still a very strong class for people optimizing high level characters. Both ends of the spectrum covered there.

Depends on your definition of "broken", but I'd say the Cleric is definitely one of the strongest classes.

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I voted Yes.

There are many ways of dealing with traps once they are located.

... such as having a good cleric.

 

[The Serge]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I voted Yes.

Every once in a while we get a DM coming here asking what to do because his kooky players have chosen a party that are weak in _____. I would say 90% of the time the DM is talking about the lack of a Cleric. Maybe 9% he is talking about the Ftr/Bar grunt role.

That's because a good number of players are not attracted this class. Unlike the Fighter and other melee classes, it's not as effective in combat and is limited in the weapons it can use. Unlike the Wizard and arcane spellcasters, the Cleric class doesn't have as many high-impact, direct damage spells on the on-set. Unlike Rogues, Clerics don't have a lot of Skills and abilities that can be helpful in most dungeon crawls. And, unless the players suspect a lot of Undead, they're not likely to worry about Clerics early on.

Clerics do have great boosting spells, healing, and the ability to turn undead. In the hands of a decent, mature player, a Cleric will find its niche in a game. For those who want to do a lot on the onset, well a Cleric doesn't offer that in most cases. That's why some DMs run into the problem you describe.

If game balance collapses without a Cleric such that the DM must strategize to save his campaign, then that tells me something is wrong with the class. Or the game.

I've seen games fall apart without a strict meleer. Does this mean the Fighter, Ranger, or Paladin classes are wrong? Does this mean there's something wrong with the game? Neither is the case.

It means that the ideal manner in which to run a game is to have at least one meleer, one divine caster, one roguish type, and one arcane caster. Or varations of the above. The lack of one can impact a game. There's A LOT of valuable information players can lose without a Bard in a party. I've seen it. There's a lot PCs can lose without a Fighter. I played a short game with a Cleric, a Monk, a Wizard, and a Thief. They ran into a ticked off Outsider that should not have been too much of a problem... if they had a Fighter. That Outsider beat the tar out of the party because no one had a high enough Fortitude to make it past the beastie's spells.

As for parties without a Rogue, you will need a good Search skill and some scouting abilities. A Ranger is good enough, or any Elf with Cosmopolitan or somesuch. There are many ways of dealing with traps once they are located.

And there are ways to boost your saves so you don't need a Cleric. There are ways you can acquire healing so you don't need a Cleric. There are ways to avoid ability drains (or at least reduce their impact) so you don't need a Cleric.

 

[Sammael99]

I believe that, from a purely mechanical viewpoint, the cleric is broken. I don't believe that mechanics should be balanced by roleplaying concerns (because they vary from campaign to campaign)

For what it's worth, I don't believe that mechanics should be balanced full stop. In a heavy rolplaying campaign, where little combat occurs, you probably have a lot more to do if you play a rogue or a bard. Are they broken for that reason ? No.

It's called a roleplaying game, not a skirmish game. I think balance is only ever mentioned as regards to pure damage that can be dished out. Roleplaying is an integral part of the mix, and I really don't see why all classes should be balanced mechanically. In any case, they're not, so why bother ?

On a side consideration, I have not played clerics yet and neither have I had PC clerics in my campaign, but I have GMed several NPC clerics. They are very efficient support characters, but they are absolutely lame one on one opponents unless they are specifically min-maxed for this purpose. In order for an enemy cleric to work well in combat, they need to have lots of henchmen / troops and devote most of their resources to supporting said troops. As soon as they jump into the fight themselves, they're toast... I've seen this happen again and again.

So do I think Clerics are "broken" ? Nope. I think they're just fine. Do I feel they're mechanically balanced ? Probably not, but it doesn't make a damn bit of difference in play...

On yet another consideration, I have also been dissapointed by the generic-ness of the cleric. I have taken slow steps to sort this out in my campaign, mainly because there have been no PC clerics. One of the things that annoyed me the most was that all the healing spells were shared by all clerics whatever deity they had. This is very obviously a "group dynamic consideration" that affected class design. It's highly unbelievable (to me) that a cleric of a god of destruction would be able to go around and heal right left and center.

The way I've ruled this, is that only clerics with domains of Healing, Life or Nature benefit from the full healing capabilities of the cleric. All other clerics do not lose the healing substitution but their healing spells are half as efficient when cast on anyone but themselves. Thus, a healing spell cast by a god of destruction on another person would be x d4s +level instead of x d8s. All "binary" healing spells like heal etc. are not on their spelllists.

Of course, contrariwyse, clerics of healing and life deities are forbidden to use any spell that does direct harm to a living creature (the restriction does not apply to undead or outsiders.)

When time allows, I'll probably design specific and distinct spell-lists for all deties...

 

[The Serge]

1. A cleric's spellcasting is (at the very least) on a par with the spellcasting of a mage. Each has strengths and weaknesses, but the cleric is not a significantly worse caster. This takes into account the ability of a cleric to miss out on sleep, cast in armour, spontaneously cast and always have access to almost all the spells on their list, along with the actual spells present on the list.

A Cleric does not have as many ranged attacks as a Wizard... and has few to none at 1st level while the Wizard has quite a few.

What the Cleric has mostly are the means to enhance the effectiveness of its party and to adversely impact adversaries. Even the more powerful spells, like flamestrike do not do as much damage as arcane spells of similar levels.

No, the Cleric is not "a significantly worse caster," but he is not of the same calibre or intent as an arcane caster. The spontaneous casting allows a Cleric more flexibility in selecting spells, but still drains them never the less when used to inflict or cure wounds. Yes, they can cast in armor... but most of the spells a Cleric has access to at lower levels bolster abilities; they do not directly hurt enemies.

This point is moot.

2. The ability of a mage to have a familiar is as much a hindrance as a help.

How so? Most familiars grant a Mage additional skills or feats, provide an extra "eye," and can provide a great deal more gaming/role-playing opportunities. Plus, they're incredibly difficult to hurt (believe me, I've tried). If anything, the familiar, when used properly, can be a very effective ally to an arcane caster.

3. The cleric gets a number of non-spellcasting perks: Twice the HPs, 1 1/2 times the BAB, and extra 'good' save, armour feats, weapon feats, turning, plus domain abilities. The wizard gets 5 bonus feats spread over 20 levels. I don't feel that these equal out.

A Fighter receives at least 10 additional Feats over 20 levels. Most of the more damaging spells a Cleric will cast against a Fighter require Fortitude saves, the Fighter's best save. A Fighter can cause a tremendous amount of damage in a short amount of time with the proper Feats... which the Fighter has premium access to.

A Wizard can cast spells to bolster, damage, change her form, change another's form, bring in a lot of allies, and receives extra-feats to make stuff and to make their spells more effective. They also have great skill points since their primary ability also impact skill access.

A Cleric is restricted to the kinds of weapons he has access to. He has to concern himself with burning a good chunk of his spells to cure allies (assuming he's good). He does not have access to a lot of Feats and has to chose them wisely. He can't pass through an area easily during combat since it's unlikely he's going to take Mobility or Spring Attack, so his ability to cause damage through inflict or harm is limited. Sure, he can wear armor, but since he's probably going to try to boost his Constitution if he hopes to fight, and since he must regularly boost his Wisdom to be an effective caster, say goodbye to Dexterity bonuses in most cases. So, he's going to wear the highest armor, slowing him down and reducing his mobility simultaneously. Plus, his ability to hit will be affected since it's unlikely that he will have anything over 16 in most cases.

Domain abilities may grant additional benefits that are immediately beneficial (like full access to certain Skills), but more often than not, these are restricted to certain elements.

This point is moot.

4. The cleric skill list is only fractionally worse than the wizard spell list.

This is not true. First, a Cleric has access to only two Knowledge types, while a Wizard can access as many as she wants.

Second, a Wizard will have access to many more skills because she has a higher Int. A Cleric has to be soooo aware of what skills he's choosing, it's not even funny. You take Diplomacy, you have to give up Concentration.

Clerics are comfortably in the middle with regards to Skills in that they are better off than the melee classes (except for Rangers).

5. A clerics casting stat affects their will saves. A wizard's casting stat affects their skill ranks. The balance goes to the wizard here.

Glad we agree here.

6. A cleric loses only the potential to turn high-level undead if he takes a prestige class giving +1 spellcaster levels. A wizard loses feats, and his familiar becomes even more of a burden.

A Wizard gains access to supernatural abilities in most cases (Mindbender, Fatespinner, Acolyte of the Flesh). She also gains enhanced DC and resistances in most cases (Elementalist, Acolyte of the Flesh). She gains access to additional Feats (Acolyte of the Flesh, Loremaster).

Nope, nothing needed here either.

I believe that these qualities represent the best possible combination of minimal disadvantages and maximum advantages. The cleric character attains the same level of power as a high level wizard with none of the drawbacks present in playing a wizard. If I proposed a character class which was a wizard, with high damage spells like fireball, cone of cold and horrid wilting removed from his list, who could cast in armour, got a 3/4 BAB, and had 2 good saves, I'd be immediately branded as a munchkin with good reason, and I've only given him half the benefits the cleric has.

Huh?

Compared to a Wizard, the Cleric does not have as many decent, high-impact spells. Most of them require that the Cleric touches the target... or they have lousy range.

A Wizard has access to spells that can bolster her melee ability, can increase certain abilities, can bring in allies to fight, can perform multiple actions, can become invisible, has better manueverability through fly, can become immune to magic...

2. Institute a rigid system for determining a cleric's standing with his god. If anyone here has seen the rules from EarthDawn for handling questors, that's similar to what I'd use.
Essentially the cleric would have some sort of 'faithfulness' score which would regulate the level of powers he currently has access to. If he acts according to his faith, he gains points. If he acts contrary to his faith (even through inaction) he loses points.
For instance, a cleric of pelor would gain points for going out of his way to destroy undead, and would lose points for suffering them to live. A cleric of travel would gain points for going on long journeys, and assisting travellers, and would lose points for settling down, ignoring travellers in need etc.
The greater the deed/misdeed, the greater the adjustment in points.
Points adjustments would occur regardless of the consequences to the cleric. If the cleric of pelor above was to refrain from attacking undead on the grounds that he would almost certainly be killed, then he is showing a weakness in his faith. He will lose points. There is nothing stopping him from gaining them back later through multiple minor acts.
The type of acts that the cleric's faith requires would be based upon which domains the cleric has. Hence even a godless cleric (the ultimate munchkin tool) would be required to follow the tenets of his faith or risk losing his spellcasting abilities.

I though you didn't think role-playing should be used to make improvements to class "imbalance." This is nothing more than a role-playing issue because it's up to each DM to determine if the Cleric is behaving properly, and up to the Cleric to role-play a certain way to limit his behavior.

And, this can be done with the Cleric class right now! I've stripped Clerics of their ability to cast spells due to their behavior based upon my clear interpretation of what the god expects. Any decent DM will be VERY clear on the on-set as to what the god in question expects from his servants and should be clear with the PC when the character's behavior is not in keeping with the god's expectations.

What you're suggesting isn't necessary.

In the end, there is nothing remotely imbalanced about this class beyond any other one. I believe that the reason people take this position is because the Cleric has been improved significantly since 1ed and 2ed. Unlike the Bard and Ranger classes (which were always peripheral classes), the Cleric class is a core class and one that has always been immediately recognizeable. It has gained undue attention because of this, leading to these poor suggestions that it's imbalanced or broken. Such simply is not the case.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

No. Clerics can be powerful, but they should be. They wield divine magic given to them by the gods.

During an actual campaign, most clerics are too busy spontaneously casting heals to fully bring to bear their clerical powers. I don't see how they can be too powerful unless they have a great deal of time to prepare, which they usually don't get considering most battles last anywhere from 3 to 10 rounds.

A prepared cleric with certain feats can be a particularly nasty PC, but not the average cleric. All classes can become abusive combinations though except maybe the melee classes.

I think clerics are fine. They are now a class that people might choose to play at their PC rather than someone dreading the fact they have to play the healer. Let's face it, the cleric takes a certain type of person to play. A person who isn't a glory hound and who actually enjoys being the one to keep the party alive while they fight the monsters.

 

[Red Spire Press]

Powerful or not, clerics just aren't sexy. If clerics were cool, the game would be more fun. Somebody write a d20 supplement to make clerics cool!!