What's the point of a mage summoner when clerics can do the same ?

[Elder-Basilisk]

Several reasons:

1. Your backup strategy. No character is going to have his main schtick be effective in every combat. In the combats where your main schtick doesn't work as well, you're going to have something else to do. If you're a cleric, that is probably healing and buffing spells like recitation, etc. If you're a wizard, you have other conjurations like acid fog, evard's black tentacles, glitterdust, web, and (at least according to the RAW) the orb spells. You also have access to fireball, haste etc.

A character who summons and heals is very different from a character who summons and blasts.

2. Planar binding. Planar binding admits any kind of negotiation you want including strong-arming weaker outsiders. For a summoner who doesn't object to obtaining his minions under the threat of destruction, that's a lot cheaper than planar ally spells which always require recompense/sacrifice.

3. Because the character you want to play is not devout.

4. Prestige classes like the initiate of the sevenfold veil and fatespinner.

 

[airwalkrr]

Chief benefit of being an arcane summoner:

Mage spells (other than summoning)

Just because it's your trick doesn't mean it is your ONLY trick.

 

[Evilhalfling]

Why play either when you can be a psion - overchanneled, boosted astral constructs anyone?
More spells, as a specialist you can cast one more per day.
other conjuation goodies - phantom steed, teleport, glitterdust.

BTW anyone else notice that the good domain allows your [good] summoned monsters to last one more round? Hardly game breaking but handy at low levels.

 

[Victim]

Psions can't get the spell like abilities that a normal caster can. In terms of pure combat nastiness, Astral Construct and Nature's Ally outdo the normal summons, but being able to get outsiders with decent spell like powers adds alot of versatility.

The arcane vs divine for summoning depends largely on what other spells you want. As mentioned above, Planar Binding has some advantages over Planar Ally. And there's the other arcane spells you might want.

 

[Li Shenron]

So, apart from any roleplaying perspective, what would make you choose an arcane caster instead of a cleric if you wish to go the summoning route ?

A Cleric and a Wizard are completely different characters

If all I wanted to do in the entire game is summoning over and over, maybe I'd choose Cleric, but normally I choose what class I want to play as a whole...

 

[Darklone]

This thread reminds me a lot of my biggest question to D&D:

Why is the cleric class the best necromancer in the game?

 

[shilsen]

This thread reminds me a lot of my biggest question to D&D:

Why is the cleric class the best necromancer in the game?

Magic related to the divine is better at dealing with life & death than non-divine magic?

 

[Darklone]

Magic related to the divine is better at dealing with life & death than non-divine magic?

That's the reasoning, agreed.

Yet the BBEG evil necromancer cliche is a wizard. The specialist necromancer in D&D is a wimp regarding undeath. He's much better at simply blasting the PCs away. And that's odd to me.

To me, the topic is just another point in the long list of what's screwed about the cleric class. It can do nearly anything better than the appointed specialists, just to get players to play a cleric.

 

[shilsen]

That's the reasoning, agreed.

Yet the BBEG evil necromancer cliche is a wizard. The specialist necromancer in D&D is a wimp regarding undeath. He's much better at simply blasting the PCs away. And that's odd to me.

I agree that it doesn't fit the standard literary version(s) of the necromancer, but then D&D doesn't fit standard fantasy (if one can use such a vague term) anyway. The BBEG evil necro wizard cliche comes from a genre in which wizards are common, but which has never really contained the D&Desque cleric as a common type. So I don't find it surprising that D&D does it differently.

Admittedly, I've never ever expected D&D to replicate literary fantasy, which is a big reason why a lot of things that people are often unhappy with D&D about never bothered me. My attitude to nomenclature ties in heavily here too, since I never connect names in D&D with the same name in other places, e.g. I never expected the D&D druid to be anything like the historic/mythic druid, or the D&D monk to be like historical/mythic monks, etc.

To me, the topic is just another point in the long list of what's screwed about the cleric class. It can do nearly anything better than the appointed specialists, just to get players to play a cleric.

And that's an argument for another thread

 

[Darklone]

I agree that it doesn't fit the standard literary version(s) of the necromancer, but then D&D doesn't fit standard fantasy (if one can use such a vague term) anyway. The BBEG evil necro wizard cliche comes from a genre in which wizards are common, but which has never really contained the D&Desque cleric as a common type. So I don't find it surprising that D&D does it differently.

Once again you summed up pretty nicely what I tried to express: Here why I don't like clerics: They are no fantasy archetype.

And that's an argument for another thread

Well, you found my grumble thread of the month already in General

Yet, here in rules I try to steer back to topic: What's the point of having a specialist if one class can do anything better? To me that's simply a problem of game balance. I wouldn't care about the cleric class if it could do all the stuff it can. I see a problem because in most cases the cleric does it better than the respective specialist. The only thing IMHO where he should have his niche is healing. Summoning, blasting spells, fighting and skill issues (which the class solves with spells) should be something where the cleric might be not too bad... but he's sometimes as strong or stronger than the specialist class for the case.