Lasher Dragon
First Post
The Clerics in the games I play in have all jumped on that Augment Healing feat from Complete Divine like a fat man on a sammich.
Rate Class Balance
- Thread starter Merlion
- Start date
Dark Dragon
Explorer
One shouldn't forget the situation a class (or party) has to handle.
A cleric with the sun domain may become really strong when undead are around. He will be on the weaker side when he faces strong flying opponents using arrows or spells. Buffed clerics are the target of Dispel Magic from time to time, so without buff spells in reserve, their combat power may tone down a bit....
A druid can become a real fighting monster with wild shape, especially at high levels (not including Shapechange which can be dispelled). But when an opponent has a good DR and/or SR like demons, constructs,.... combat becomes boring quickly and puts the druid in a supporter role. I've seen that very often.
Wizards are strong when they can stay out of melee combat and when they have a good spell selection (damaging spells, non-damaging offensive spells, defense and evacuation spells). But antimagic foes or those with a good SR, energy resistances,... need a fighter buddy to bring such a foe down.
The warrior types (fighter, barbarian, paladin, monk) rely heavyly on spell assistance in higher levels when opponents fly, climb, levitate or teleport or cast spells.
The rogues and scouts are versatile and can shine in role play and in combat, especially when they have some PrC.
I'd put the primary spellcasters on the top of the power ranking,
the other classes a bit lower.
A cleric with the sun domain may become really strong when undead are around. He will be on the weaker side when he faces strong flying opponents using arrows or spells. Buffed clerics are the target of Dispel Magic from time to time, so without buff spells in reserve, their combat power may tone down a bit....
A druid can become a real fighting monster with wild shape, especially at high levels (not including Shapechange which can be dispelled). But when an opponent has a good DR and/or SR like demons, constructs,.... combat becomes boring quickly and puts the druid in a supporter role. I've seen that very often.
Wizards are strong when they can stay out of melee combat and when they have a good spell selection (damaging spells, non-damaging offensive spells, defense and evacuation spells). But antimagic foes or those with a good SR, energy resistances,... need a fighter buddy to bring such a foe down.
The warrior types (fighter, barbarian, paladin, monk) rely heavyly on spell assistance in higher levels when opponents fly, climb, levitate or teleport or cast spells.
The rogues and scouts are versatile and can shine in role play and in combat, especially when they have some PrC.
I'd put the primary spellcasters on the top of the power ranking,
the other classes a bit lower.
Estlor
Explorer
I think class "balance" is a fictional attempt to quantify the potential for a class to meet varying situations directly with ease. In other words, to say a class is "balanced" means it has benefits and drawbacks that make it worthwhile roughly 1/4 of the time. To say something is "overpowered" means the class can shine in more than 1/4 of the situations. To say something is "weak" means the class can shine in less than 1/4 of the situations. In a way, it's all about party build customization.
Take the bard, for example. It's a wonderfully balanced class in 3.5e. Not everyone's cup of tea, but balanced. To play a bard, you REALLY have to sit down with the other characters and build him to suit the group. The only really limiting factor about the bard is you have to build him as a missile combat character from the get go. Then again, a human bard at 1st level could have both Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot. At that point he can support the Fighter and/or Cleric in combat or make a really vicious team with a Fighter and Rogue if they concentrate on a single target.
On the flip side, a person who plays a Cleric can basically build whatever he wants because the ability to spontaneously cast healing spells allows him to always fill the niche while being whatever else he wants at the same time. It makes it much easier to build a good cleric without trying, whereas a good bard (or efficient fighter) requires more thought and planning.
Take the bard, for example. It's a wonderfully balanced class in 3.5e. Not everyone's cup of tea, but balanced. To play a bard, you REALLY have to sit down with the other characters and build him to suit the group. The only really limiting factor about the bard is you have to build him as a missile combat character from the get go. Then again, a human bard at 1st level could have both Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot. At that point he can support the Fighter and/or Cleric in combat or make a really vicious team with a Fighter and Rogue if they concentrate on a single target.
On the flip side, a person who plays a Cleric can basically build whatever he wants because the ability to spontaneously cast healing spells allows him to always fill the niche while being whatever else he wants at the same time. It makes it much easier to build a good cleric without trying, whereas a good bard (or efficient fighter) requires more thought and planning.
Thanee
First Post
scipio said:
What makes them the best is that they are powerful spellcasters (not as powerful as a sorcerer or wizard, of course, but there are a lot of extremely powerful spells in the cleric list, i.e. Silence, they have the ultimate buff spells, superb healing spells, good offensive spells and even some good utility spells) and (with only few buffs) they are also powerful combatants (two buffs and a cleric is about on par with a fighter). They have good saves (the two important ones), good hit points, etc. They have no real weakness other than a lack of skills and feats, but that is not really a weakness. They also have lots of options with the plethora of domains out there and most domain abilities are feats or equally useful as a feat. Also clerics are in no way dependant on their equipment like a fighter is. All they need is some nonmagical stuff and they are good to go.
It's the whole which makes them so powerful as a class.
Bye
Thanee
Merlion
First Post
Its pretty much like Thanee said, and like I said earlier.
Although..
I disagree with that. When push comes to shove and all things are accounted for, I think Clerics and Wizards are about equal spellcasters. For a number of reasons. And a Cleric is definitely a superior spellcaster to a Sorcerer (but then so is almost everyone else).
But overall yea, the trouble with Clerics is, they have basically no weaknesses, and lots of strengths.
Only a Monk or Paladin can hope for better saves than a Cleric (or druid), plus they have good HP, and fighter-level AC. Add to that Death Ward, Freedom of Movement, Spell Resistance, Protection from Energy...a prepared Cleric is getting close to invulnerable, and even an unpreprared one is likely to be unaffected by many of the games most powerful effects.
Of course, many people say its ok for Clerics to have all this either because 1) they claim the Cleric has little offense or that its situational and 2) that the Cleric is going to be expected to expend most of their power on the party. Sadly, both of these are pretty much incorect.
1) Clerics have plenty of offense, just not a whole lot of direct damage. They can kill and incapacitate foes with the best of them, or as Thanee mentioned simply cast a buff and melee things to death
2) the way DnD is set up, healing and buffing *during combat* unless someone is *about to die* is probably going to hurt the party more than help it. Taking out the enemy is generaly going to be more helpful than trading actions with the enemy by healing and the like. And since Clerics can use Cure spells spontaneously, and use wands, theres little reason for them *not* to be the offensive juggernaut they can be during combat, then use the leftovers to clean up afterwards.
Although..
I disagree with that. When push comes to shove and all things are accounted for, I think Clerics and Wizards are about equal spellcasters. For a number of reasons. And a Cleric is definitely a superior spellcaster to a Sorcerer (but then so is almost everyone else).
But overall yea, the trouble with Clerics is, they have basically no weaknesses, and lots of strengths.
Only a Monk or Paladin can hope for better saves than a Cleric (or druid), plus they have good HP, and fighter-level AC. Add to that Death Ward, Freedom of Movement, Spell Resistance, Protection from Energy...a prepared Cleric is getting close to invulnerable, and even an unpreprared one is likely to be unaffected by many of the games most powerful effects.
Of course, many people say its ok for Clerics to have all this either because 1) they claim the Cleric has little offense or that its situational and 2) that the Cleric is going to be expected to expend most of their power on the party. Sadly, both of these are pretty much incorect.
1) Clerics have plenty of offense, just not a whole lot of direct damage. They can kill and incapacitate foes with the best of them, or as Thanee mentioned simply cast a buff and melee things to death
2) the way DnD is set up, healing and buffing *during combat* unless someone is *about to die* is probably going to hurt the party more than help it. Taking out the enemy is generaly going to be more helpful than trading actions with the enemy by healing and the like. And since Clerics can use Cure spells spontaneously, and use wands, theres little reason for them *not* to be the offensive juggernaut they can be during combat, then use the leftovers to clean up afterwards.
Thanee
First Post
Merlion said:
This is just completely wrong in my experience.
Sorcerers are the very best spellcasters in the game, when it comes to spellcasting during combat.
Wizards are the very best spellcasters out of combat.
Clerics and then Druids are good spellcasters as well, but not that good.
There's a bit more to arcane spells than just better direct damage...
Bye
Thanee
Merlion
First Post
They have better illusions and mind control. But Clerics have better defense, healing, and are better at information-gathering divinations (most mage divinations detect things rather than actually giving information).
They are about equal in overall offense, and in detection-divination.
Mages have teleportation, but Clerics can get that too (and especially if Domain Spontaneity is allowed...how that feat was ever printed is beyond me..)
And of course the Cleric gets a bunch of self buffs that would be nearly uselss to a wizard, but to a Cleric with his already pretty good HP etc, can be very powerful.
And then, the kicker comes in the fact that Clerics automatically know *all* their spells. A Wizard can theorically learn every spell on his list...but it costs. A Cleric gets them all automatically.
And then of course the poor sorcerer gets only a tiny number of availble spells.
If Clerics are worse spellcasters than Wizards it only by a tiny margin. Not enough to offset the massive non-spellcasting advantages of the Cleric.
Victim
First Post
Wizard offense includes spells like Enervation and Evard's Black Tentacles. While cleric direct blasting spells catch up to a wizard's, the wizard usually has strong edge in impairing and battlefield shaping spells. Also, there are several levels where the cleric is lacking in stand out spells. At 5th level, wizards get fireball and fly. Clerics get Prayer and Searing light.
Merlion
First Post
Victim said:
Like I said, I consider Cleric/Wizard roughly even in overall offense.
And yes, at levels 1-6 the Cleric is much more limited, although this is also when the Wizard, as a character is weakest and the Cleric overall is still quite strong.
And its really from 9th level on that the Cleric gets silly. At 9th level Wizards get, say Cone of Cold and Baleful Polymorph, Clerics get Slay Living and Flame Strike.
And then at 13th, Cleric gets Destruction, and Wizard gets Finger of Death. Finger of Death has a better range, but Destruction does more damage on a failed save...and since the min range on Destruction is 90 feet, its not that big a deal.
And certainlly, Mages are better especially at low-mid levels at taking out lots of weak enemies, because they do have more and better area affect damage spells. However, I find these spells are often very diffacult to use without harming your comrades, and would generally rather have more precise attacks anyway.
its also interesting to note that a Wizard can cast Evard's Black Tentacles, but a Cleric can negate it for themselves or others with Freedom of Movement
