PHB Cleric = Unbalanced?

[tetsujin28]

Clerics aren't as useful in as many situations as a properly prepared wizard. A wizard who hasn't prepared a useful selection of spells is a sack of meat waiting to be eaten.

A wizard who hasn't prepared a useful selection of spells (given time) is an idiot

 

[Zappo]

Clerics can only fight better than fighters once or maybe twice per day, and they still lose one or two rounds getting there. I've got a barbarian/cleric with the Strength domain IMC, and by using buffs, rage, and the Strength domain ability he can deal absurd damage ... once. In games with one encounter per day or less, all spellcasters are overpowered.

 

[RithTheAwakener]

Clerics are very nice.
But fighters get weapon specialization! so there!! And Devistating Critical, but thats way off in the distance.
Cleric is also the least popular class in our group, because its basically the "b***h" class.

/side note: Has anyone partaken in a group of ALL clerics? How did you all fare?

 

[wedgeski]

Clerics have been my favourite D&D character class for as long as I can remember. I've played a lot of clerics, and DM'd a lot of clerics. Empirically speaking they seem perfectly balanced, but note in my standard 3ed campaign we only *ever* use the core abilities. No splats, extra feats, new domains, new PrC's, or whatever. As a core class, they seem spot-on.

 

[Afrodyte]

Once players twig to the mechanical advantages of the cleric, and make a conscious decision not to use it as a "healbot" (as someone described it), then there is little other choice for best all-round character class. Even using solely SRD material. What's not to like about a class with access to all armours (except tower shields), a goodly range of weapons, two good saves where they're most needed (Reflex is just "save or be injured" - Fort and Will are "save or be incapacitated") with prime ability support for Will saves, spontaneous casting, turn undead, "full" spellcasting, more spells per day than anyone else except the sorcerer, and access to all spells in their spell list?

What I find more puzzling is the fact that WotC seems to have expected players to not notice this.

 

[Goddess FallenAngel]

Although everyone's replies are enlightening, I still wonder.

I've played several clerics since 3.5 came out. I've never had a one that could rival the party wizard or the party fighter for damage.

Maybe I just don't min-max clerics to the full extent. ;D

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Mechanically on paper its over powered, as is the paladin. But they are both classes that are balances by their role playing requirements. Both classes can be stripped of their powers quite easily. DM's whom fail to take advantage of their obvious weakness will be the only ones to find clerics unbalanced in game.

I don't really get that. If the cleric's involved in an adventure, then their church and deity probably support the mission, right? So how is using their massive power to help fulfill the mission going to displease their god?

On the other hand, if the god doesn't approve of the adventure, why's the cleric even there?

All I know is, I went out of my way to make a 3E cleric who was a peaceful gatherer of information. The GM kind of pulled a bait-and-switch on us, turning the campaign into a series of brutal running battles. All I had to do was change my prepared spells, and suddenly I was cleaning up. We all went, "... Huh. They can do that?"

 

[Henry]

Another vote for "Clerics are not unbalanced, but they ride the line between "Strong" and "Overpowered."

I'll note that a Cleric may well be the ONE class most suited for solo adventuring: Healing, decent combat, divination spells, and domain special abilities all together mean that he could handle many different types of challenges, with some prep time.

WotC gave me a great gift when they restructured the cleric, because where the majority of D&D'ers don't like clerics, and WotC wanted to entice people to play them, I ALREADY liked clerics even back in the Basic D&D days, and playing one in 3E is like being a kid in a candy store.

 

[lukelightning]

The problem with clerics is the way divine spell lists work. When a new book comes out with spells, an arcane caster has to somehow spend resources to get the new spells...either by buying/researching/choosing them as "get two free/level" spells in the case of wizards, or spending a valuable "spells known" slot for them in the case of spontatneous casters.

Miraculously, however, when a book comes out with new cleric spells, poof, a cleric has a zillion more options, all for no cost whatsoever. Sure, some DM's may limit these spells somehow, but only through houseruling. There is no established mechanic in D&D that even acts as a guideline for how to handle this.

And the more cleric spells there are, the more versatile clerics become and the more they overshadow wizards. It used to be that clerics lacked offensive spells; now they have more and more direct damage spells, ostensibly less powerful than wizard spells but not necessarily.

And there are more and more domains, often taking wizard spells. Now clerics can cast fireballs, lightning bolts, even magic missile if you chose the right domain. The wizards' guild should be protesting this blatant theft of intellectual property.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Good? Very good? Sure. Overpowered? Not by a long shot.

It comes in the versatility of the Four Roles (healer, blaster, tank, and sneak). A well-tricked-out cleric can supply two of those four pretty easily (tank, healer), and they are one of the only classes that can do healing. The bard can cover Sneak and Healer pretty well, but without armor, they can't be much of a tank. The druid can cover three roles pretty okay: healer, blaster, and tank; and, arguably, they can make the fourth one in certain situations, too.

Now, the areas that clerics don't do that well in (blaster and sneak) they can still be made to do somewhat decent in. A cleric with the Fire domain, for instance, becomes a potent blaster -- not as much as a wizard, but then, that cleric can still heal and tank, while the wizard can't do either of those. A cleric with the Trickery domain can become a decent sneak, using illusions and Charisma to compensate for their bulky armor. They won't be as good as the Rogue, but the rogue can't tank, can't heal, and can't blast, either.

This leads to the perception of clerics being overpowered -- they can do a little bit of everything (and usually, more than the bard can). Where they are limited is that the only thing they do better than anyone else is heal.

You can be a cleric-tank, but why bother when you can have a fighter who will be better with less effort? You can have a cleric-blaster, but if you've got a sorcerer, who needs it? You can have a cleric-sneak, but the rogue will outshine you in every situation. You can have a cleric-healer, but there's two other classes who can use wands of wound-curing too, so that's hardly a monopoly.

Which, ultimately, means clerics are great at support. They can help any member of the party in any situation, though they will only outshine other party members in healing. They can run to the front with the fighter, they can hang in the back with the wizard, they can sneak off to back up the rogue. This makes them one of the most versatile classes in the PHB, perhaps *the* most versatile. And frequently, versatility gets confused with power (cf: every argument on the Mystic Theurge). They aren't the same thing, however.