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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LokiDR" data-source="post: 913711" data-attributes="member: 6239">If you have other tatical options for the characters, please let me know.  Jozan could have backed up and used his crossbow, but that would be even less damage.  Grappling, likewise, goes to Alhandra, as well as disarming.  Jozan could trip him, with a decent chance of success, but he would still lose to the mount and Alhandra just getting up.My point is, clerics do not tend to optimize for combat because they MUST cover those elements of the game the other characters can not.  Fighters can't cast lesser restoration.A cleric optimized for combat can be more effective than a fighter or perhaps a barbarian.So?The cleric has a different role to play in a party.  If they do not ful-fill that role, they aren't playing an effective cleric.  And the fact is that a paladin should be able to kick a cleric around if neither can use spells.  If this wasn't true, there would never be a reason to play a paladin.I don't see any of iconics as poorly designed.  They are not optimized for this specific fight, which justifies the test.  If we ask members of this board to make a paladin and a cleric, we would make far more powerful characters, I'm sure.  If I asked some one who had never played D&D to make a cleric and a paladin, I'm sure they would be worse.Both characters have relevant feats, equipment, and are not over-specialized.  They are both well rounded characters that would work well in any number of campaigns.  They could be optimized, alot, but that doesn't mean they are not "well designed".If the query regarded two character made buy members of the boards, there is no question: Cleric.  But the majority of the D&D world would make more effective paladins for combat than clerics.  So I used the iconics, to remove our bias.</blockquote>

Verification