Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Serge" data-source="post: 365573" data-attributes="member: 4049">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.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.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.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).Glad we agree here.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.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...<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> 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.</blockquote>

Verification