Which Class or classes do you feel are unbalanced-too powerful?

[Nail]

For comparison, if someone were to design an ability that let you automatically critical, that wouldn't make scythes broken. Scythes would demonstrate that the ability is broken. Clerics are the scythe. Divine metamagic and Persistent Spell are the autocrit ability in this analogy.

Wow, E-B. That's an excellent analogy. Yoink!

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Persistent is only an issue WRT to clerics if it is specifically broken for clerics but not for anyone else. It's not. It's utterly and completely broken for anyone who gets any use out of it whatsoever. (Because the only non-broken uses are worthless at +6 levels). Wizards (especially fighter/wizards) break like an egg in an auto wreck when you pull persistent wraithstrike out of the bag. Now, Divine metamagic may make this more of an issue for clerics than for other classes, but it's still a problem with the Persistent Spell feat rather than clerics. Divine Metamagic is a problematic feat as well.

For comparison, if someone were to design an ability that let you automatically critical, that wouldn't make scythes broken. Scythes would demonstrate that the ability is broken. Clerics are the scythe. Divine metamagic and Persistent Spell are the autocrit ability in this analogy.

OT
wow I forgot they made persistent +6 spell levels now. Way to go guys. So now legitimate uses suck butt, and spells that are broken if persistent at any level are still broken. Why they didn't alter how it works at its core I will not comprehend.

 

[Thanee]

This doesnt cut it for me. The thing you summon has access to the spells, not you. A Cleric can prepare and cast Wizard spells, or use them directly through items. A Wizard, especially in Core, can do no such thing.

What's the problem there? All cleric spells the wizard ever wants to cast are buffs or healing spells, all of which can easily be cast that way, since time is usually not a problem.

Since my sorceress has picked up the spell, I have some actual play experience with that, and it works really well.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Merlion]

You see, I disagree here. I'd say that the druid is unquestionably and dramatically overpowered and that the cleric is (ignoring rules exploits like persistent spell: divine metamagic which is a problem because persistent spell is a problem in any context it comes up or caster level boosting+holy word or blasphemy which is a problem because the spell was not properly thought out) only mildly overpowered (and that's probably a good thing because the ability to be the party's band-aid is not going to be much of a selling point for the class.

And I disagree with pretty much all of this I have yet to see any way, in the rules, in which the Druid is a stronger class than the Cleric. Druids can do some things that Clerics cannot yes. But the same is true in reverse and often in more important ways.

Also on Holy Word etc: The Cleric seems to have an inordinate number of ill-thought out spells and also ill-thought out Cleric focused magic items (such as the Bead of Karma) and feats (such as Divine Metamagic and Domain Spontaneity).

You keep talking about limitations on the druid spell list--which are those limited spells again? As far as I can tell, entangle is probably the best example (though it also regularly shows up on the list of overpowered spells) but it's also one of the very few examples. You have to really look through the druid list to find spells that have limitations on where they are effective. As for limitations on what they effect, that's hardly a druid issue. Sure, quench, animal growth, charm animal, and blight are all target-limited. However, so are undeath to death, command undead, halt undead, searing light, protection from evil, and a host of other spells. If the limited spells don't clog up the druid spell list and choke out generally useful spells then they're not a compelling argument for a druid's weakness--they're a way for the druid to be even stronger in their specialized environment.

Limited Druid Spells: Animal Friendship, Calm Animals, Detect Snares and Pits, Entangle, Invisbility to Animals, Magic Fang, Animal Messenger, Animal Trance, Charm Animal, Hold Animal, Soften Earth and Stone, Warp Wood, Wood Shape, Dominate Animal, Greater Magic Fang, Snare, Speak with Plants, Antiplant Shell, Giant Vermin, Quench, Repel Vermin, Animal Growth, Commune with Nature (as compared to Commune and CoP), Transmute Rock to Mud, Tree Stride, Fire Seeds, Repel Wood, Transport Via Plants, Transmute Metal to Wood, Repel Metal or Stone


Thats at least 30 spells. Not a huge number, but considering the Druid list is already even small than the Bards, thats a good chunk of spells that have limits on their effects...target, material type or enviroment. In particular Transmute Rock to Mud which can be very useful has the strong limitations of that it only effects *stone* (it cant turn dirt into mud) and it must be totally unworked stone.


And sure other classes have target limited spells (although Searing Light isnt one of them..it works fine on non undead, it just has greater effect on undead), but usualy those spells are only taken and used much under special circumstances.

I am being calm. I'm just wondering if you have actually seen a 3.5 druid in play. I know I wouldn't describe the druid's spell list as limited myself. They do have fewer 9th level spells (core rules only--non-core materials eliminate this restriction) than it might be nice for them to have, but I still think you could pretty easily play an old guy with a staff and an animal who does his bidding, tell the party that you're a wizard, fill that role convincingly, and have nothing but druid levels.

Sure you could (and I myself prefer to think of Druids as Nature-Mages rather than Nature Priests), but this doesnt really relate to their power level or balance. And mechanically you could not fully fill the role. You could get past on the direct damage. But Wizards are better at save or dies, teleportation and other means of transport, mind control and illusions.

The Druid spell list is considerable smaller, and covers less overall ground than that of the other full casters. In some enviroments the gap narrows considerably. But their main magical offense is in the form of direct damage, which has serious issues in mid and high levels...especially for many of the spells Druids use in that area that deal smaller amounts of damage over a period of time. They arent especially good with Save or Dies, which later on becomes the main effective form of spellcasting offense. They are good buffers and healers, and good at some forms of utility, good at direct damage, and of course now good at summoning.

Sure. Druids get a lot of spells one level off of where clerics or wizards get it. They get poison at 3rd level, for instance, and flame strike at 4th so it goes both ways

Yes, and their getting Flame Strike as a 4th level spell is indeed a very overpowered circumstance, since at 4th level it breaks the caps even for Arcane damage spells.

Even with that though, I dont think getting Flame Strike and Poison a level early really makes up for getting Dispel Magic and Finger of Death a level late.

point of my list is that druids have plenty of top-tier nonrestricted spells at every level and a druid could quite comfortably play his entire career without ever preparing or casting a restricted area or target spell.

Certainly this is true. And they do have plenty of good non restricted spells. But their spell list is still not the equal of the other casting classes. And thats as it should be considering everything else Druids get.

Actually, I think you said that the druid list was more limited than that of the cleric. That's a rather separate contention. (And you'll note that most of the cleric spells you complain about (freedom of movement, death ward) are on the druid list as well)

Indeed. And as I have said, i feel both classes are too strong. And I feel those spells should be availble to more classes, and in some ways that the spells themselves might also benefit from some adjustments.

The problem with this contention is that you're wrong.

Oh really? You realize I feel exactly the same about your contention, although to a lesser degree, because I do feel the Druid is to strong. I just think the Cleric is worse. And also, the Druid in 3.0 was a bit less overpowered than it is now, whereas the Cleric has been overpowered from the begining of 3.x

While druids don't get everything on the cleric list (restoration, for instance is conspicuously absent, as is raise dead), they are stronger in other areas (direct damage spells, summoning, etc). I would say the cleric and druid spell lists are broadly comparable.

Almost, but I dont think quite. Partially because of where the differences lie. Druids are better at direct damage, but Clerics are far better at save or dies, and past low levels save or dies are generally more useful. Also Clerics have things like Hold Person, Blindness/Deafness and others that disable foes...the Druid mainly has Entangle in that area, which is a great spell but also nearly the only one of its kind on the Druid list. Clerics also have the potential devastating Alignment Word spells, better divinations, and far better self combat buffs.
Also the have Spell Resistance and the Spell Immunities along with the magic defense spells they share with Druids.

You keep referring to wildshape and armor proficiency like they were comparable. They're not. (Show of hands--how many fighters wouldn't trade heavy armor proficiency for the ability to wildshape? How many clerics? Thought so). Heavy armor proficiency is a defensive ability that allows characters to get a good armor class without a high dexterity. (Characters with light armor can get nearly the same AC but require a good dexterity to do so). Heavy armor does nothing for a character's offense and has a number of serious restrictions (movement, no evasion, armor check penalties) that lead a lot of characters to eschew it even when they are proficient. (I've seen a number of moderate dexterity clerics, for instance, who prefer chain shirts or mithral chain mail to fullplate because they don't plan on getting into melee anyway). Wildshape, on the other hand, is an offensive (it grants special attacks, improved strength, dex, and con, etc), scouting, and mobility ability and at high levels (plant and elemental wildshape) has some very significant defensive capabilities as well (immunity to crits, etc). The two abilities do not fill the same roles nor do they approach remotely similar levels of power. The comparison is apples and oranges.

Ok let me explain what I am getting at in this area. Most of the people I hear ranting about Druids and saying the are worse than the Cleric claim that Wildshape can let the Druid replace the Fighter because they can get such great ACs, and the Str and grapple stuff and whatall else.

And I dont agree with that. Viritually all the Wild Shape forms have mediocre ACs that the Druid could probably easily achieve in his own form with what armor he has avaible and deccent Dex, and while yes you get the Str and attacks, you still only have medium BAB.

In terms of Combat, I feel the Clerics heavy armor proficiency which is probably going to provide a better AC and which has no casting restrictions, along with their base combat ability and melee buffs is going to be a stronger melee ability overall than a Wildshaped druid.


I dont really consider Wildshape to be one of the issues of a Druids too-great strength.

As for the cleric being not having to be geared towards physical combat to be effective in it, you're wrong about that. I've played a number of clerics and they have very different abilities due to how they were designed. A cleric who is going to play the fighter role will have a good starting strength (if your cleric starts with an 8 strength, she can cast all the spells she wants and she'll merely be an adequate fighter if nothing else is available--she won't even be in the same ballpark as a well-designed fighter), good constitution, heavy armor, a good magical weapon, and a feat selection geared towards melee combat. cleric who can be competitive with fighters will have feats like Power Attack, Cleave, Weapon Focus, and Quicken Spell

Your right about the abilities, to an extent, although its not like its diffacult. A cleric should be able to have high Wis, and deccent Str, Con and Cha with little or no diffaculty. And they dont need to be stellar, especially Str considering how much Str the main Cleric melee buffs add.

However I dont really agree about feats. Sure picking up Power Attack and Weapon Focus is a good idea for a Cleric who plans to do this a lot, and Quicken is just a good idea period. But many combat feats are designed to make you better at specific special manuevers, and dont really do a lot for you if you just want to beat the enemy to death, and if the Cleric does manage to get more than one melee buff off (say both DP and RM) the abilities gained from that will help a great deal with the real heart of melee...beating the crud out of the enemy while surviving the experience yourself.

Domains also make a big difference in a cleric's martial ability. A cleric with knowledge and sun domains or inquisition and purification is not likely to be competing with the fighters. The clerics who compete with fighters have domain combinations like Strength and Destruction or Competition and War.

I think Domains make even less of a difference. They can help (or make it even worse as I think of it) but a Cleric with Sun and Travel still has a d8 hit die, medium BAB, full armor prof, and access to Divine Power and Righteous Might.

Now yea a Cleric with War gets a free martial weapon and weapon focus, which makes it even worse (not to mention getting the Power Word spells from the Wizard list).

The bottom line is this: if your cleric is not designed to be a combat powerhouse, you can cast all the spells you want and you will still be a merely adequate fighter--not competitive with the real fighters. (And the battle will often be over by the time you're done casting your buffs)

I disagree with both of these. a Cleric with a deccent weapon who casts Divine Power is going to be competitive with a Fighter. Same BAB. Same HPs. Same or better AC. that to me is the main issues of melee combat.

And it only really takes the 1 round. Now yea, take two rounds and add Righteous Might and its even worse. And of course from about 9th on you could do DP and a Quickened Divine Favor in the same round, and at high level, you can do DP and RM in one round.

If your cleric specifically sacrificed combat ability (8 str, 10 dex, 12 con, and no combat feats or combat focused domains for instance),

But why, from a mechanically perspective, would a Cleric do this? Why would a Cleric EVER have a super low Str, seeing as how it would make it very diffacult for him to use his armor profciencies effectively? In most common ability generation systems, a Cleric should be able to have deccent Str, Con and Cha along with high Wis, and at higher levels can get or *make* low-bonus ability increasing items as well.

And I don't maintain that it does (though, with specific character design, it can allow a druid to fill a barbarian's role). It does, however, allow any druid--even one who specifically sacrificed melee combat ability in character design--to be a very effective second tier combatant and top shelf special forces (grappling, etc. when advantageous) when the need arises.

I dont personally have a problem with that

 

[Merlion]

and some of that non-core stuff is broken and/or poorly designed. Does that mean that a Core class that can use it is broken/poorly designed? Of course not.

Thats true. But it doesnt change the fact of wether or not a given core class is broken/poorly designed.


Also, if you keep seeing materials again and again that are broken/poorly designed, and are made specifically for or can only be used by a certain core class (like Divine Metamagic, Domain Spontaneity etc) especially a core class that is often spoken of as being poorly designed, it makes you wonder doesnt it?


Also for the record, to me WOTC produced stuff like the Complete books that are obviously meant as direct add ons to the core rules might as well be part of the core rules, and should be held to the same standards, AND if the company that designed the core rules can put out material obviously designed as an add on to the core rules that contains unbalanced material, its not hard to think that the core rules themselves might contain unbalanced material.

Is it possible you've simplified this list of weaknesses too far?

By which you mean, I *have* simplified the list. Why dont you just say that? And even better, how about you list the weaknesses you feel they have? And in this context when I say weakness, I mean a vulnerability....not a not-strong area, like the Cleric and Direct Damage, I mean something that can and will get you killed, like a Wizards extremely low HP or a Rogues low Fort saves.

You keep saying this, and I don't buy it. I've played clerics, I've DMed clerics. I've seen the spell in play a few times.....and it's not seemed over-powered when used. Often it's a "band-aid spell" applied after the fact. If you'd like, I'd be happy to detail my experiences.I'm afraid you're going to have to put your money where your mouth is. Have you seen this spell in play? Where and how, exactly?

No, I havent. But all one needs to do to know what the spell does is read the spell descrption.And, I never said the spell was horribly overpowered. In my personal design philsophy, giving total immunity to a bunch of things, as oposed to making them easier to defend against, is a little much (and note that both Freedom of Movement and especially Death Ward have had the effects they encompass slowly but steadily increased reccently). And I said that its not really the spell thats the problem. Its the suite of class features and spells and abilities that Clerics get, taken as a whole, that makes an overpowered class.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

And I disagree with pretty much all of this I have yet to see any way, in the rules, in which the Druid is a stronger class than the Cleric. Druids can do some things that Clerics cannot yes. But the same is true in reverse and often in more important ways.

Also on Holy Word etc: The Cleric seems to have an inordinate number of ill-thought out spells and also ill-thought out Cleric focused magic items (such as the Bead of Karma) and feats (such as Divine Metamagic and Domain Spontaneity).

If you're going to talk about Divine Metamagic, don't ignore spikes, quill blast, Arcane Heirophant, Nature's Favor, etc. And I think Wall of Thorns and fire seeds are pretty competitive with a lot of the broken cleric spells. Maybe not as broken as the alignment word spells combined with all of the broken caster level boosting tricks in every book and something like miracle for a spellstaff spell (hey look a druid spell) to get the bead of karma, candle of invocation, etc. all working at once but it's pretty close.

Ok let me explain what I am getting at in this area. Most of the people I hear ranting about Druids and saying the are worse than the Cleric claim that Wildshape can let the Druid replace the Fighter because they can get such great ACs, and the Str and grapple stuff and whatall else.

That's why I said replace the barbarian. Lots of damage. Not so much AC. But grappling, etc. will provide an instant win in a lot of combats. That's nothing to sneeze at.

In terms of Combat, I feel the Clerics heavy armor proficiency which is probably going to provide a better AC and which has no casting restrictions, along with their base combat ability and melee buffs is going to be a stronger melee ability overall than a Wildshaped druid.

Sure. If you have a built-for combat cleric, he's a better combatant than a druid who sacrificed combat ability and just does wildshape. But if your druid is built to take advantage of wildshape, he's easily as good as the cleric.

Your right about the abilities, to an extent, although its not like its diffacult. A cleric should be able to have high Wis, and deccent Str, Con and Cha with little or no diffaculty. And they dont need to be stellar, especially Str considering how much Str the main Cleric melee buffs add.

See the analysis later. Your cleric who has a high wisdom and a decent strength, con, and charisma is a 32 point buy character at the minimum. If he wants decent skills as well, he's out of luck without a 36 point or higher build.

However I dont really agree about feats. Sure picking up Power Attack and Weapon Focus is a good idea for a Cleric who plans to do this a lot, and Quicken is just a good idea period. But many combat feats are designed to make you better at specific special manuevers, and dont really do a lot for you if you just want to beat the enemy to death, and if the Cleric does manage to get more than one melee buff off (say both DP and RM) the abilities gained from that will help a great deal with the real heart of melee...beating the crud out of the enemy while surviving the experience yourself.

Special manuevers (like Imp Trip and Combat Reflexes or Shock Trooper or Combat Brute if you want to use non-core) make it easier to lay the beatdown on your enemies without getting beat down yourself. More on that later.

I think Domains make even less of a difference. They can help (or make it even worse as I think of it) but a Cleric with Sun and Travel still has a d8 hit die, medium BAB, full armor prof, and access to Divine Power and Righteous Might.

Now yea a Cleric with War gets a free martial weapon and weapon focus, which makes it even worse (not to mention getting the Power Word spells from the Wizard list).

The Power Word spells don't strike me as a big deal--it's not like my Wizard uses them... but the reason that domains make a difference is because they can add peak damage output and cut down the prep time for the cleric. A cleric with strength and destruction can start laying the smack down in round 1 by using his domain smite and feat of strength (And a quickened divine favor if he's really worried). Otherwise, it's likely to be round 2 before he does anything constructive. There are lots of good domains, but only some of them make a cleric a better fighter. And the clerics that make people say "this guy's as good as a fighter" are the ones that have those domains.

I disagree with both of these. a Cleric with a deccent weapon who casts Divine Power is going to be competitive with a Fighter. Same BAB. Same HPs. Same or better AC. that to me is the main issues of melee combat.

This is one of the points where it becomes obvious that you haven't played a cleric. The first issue here is a "decent weapon." A good fighter should be able to count on a Greater Magic Weapon from the cleric or wizard so Greater Magic Weapon itself won't make up for the difference. If you're level 10 (the level where clerics can really start getting all their mojo working together), the fighter's weapon is probably +1 holy, +1 wounding, or +1 keen flaming. If your cleric's weapon is just +1, you're already at a disadvantage. If you spend as much money on your weapon as the fighter does, you're sacrificing other possibilities (a good periapt of wisdom which is necessary to make your save or dies effective, for instance) and are already designing yourself into the role of a fighter.

Second, there is the issue of stats. Since we're talking about decent fighters here, let's offer two options:
Mr. Damage: Barbarian 2/Fighter 8 1/2 orc 18 starting strength 12, dex, 14 con--currently 24 (+2 levels, +4 belt) and 28 when raging.
Mr Defense: Fighter 10 dwarf with 16 starting strength, 12 dex, 16 con--currently strength 20 (+2 levels, +2 gauntlets), and 18 con (+2 amulet of health)

Now, our cleric with Divine Power--let's say that he's built to be melee capable (which involves sacrifices elsewhere as I'll explore later) 14 str, 10 dex, 14 con. With Divine Power, he gets a 20 strength and 1 hp fewer than a 10th level fighter with a 14 con. Which is 25 hit points fewer than the raging Mr. Damage and 21 hp fewer than Mr. Defense. His 20 strength is equal to Mr. Defense but FAR lower than Mr. Damage. But that's just stats. Let's look at how that plays out:

Damage output. Both fighters have Greater Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization as well as Improved Critical with their weapons. That means that Mr. Damage has +4 to hit and +5 damage on Mr. Cleric without raging. If he rages, that's +6 to hit and +8 damage. Mr. Defense has +2 to hit and +2 damage on Mr. Cleric.

Defense. Everyone is wearing fullplate. We'll assume that Mr. Cleric is forgoing traditional cleric items like a lesser strand of prayer beads because he wants to be able to compete with the fighters and they all have the same +2 fullplate of light fortification. Now, Mr. Cleric has a choice to make. Does he want to be Mr. Cleric Damage and wield a two-handed weapon or Mr. Cleric Defense and go for a one-handed weapon and shield.

Let's say he goes for Mr. Cleric damage. In that case, his AC will be one point better than Mr. Damage--when Mr. Damage is raging. (Mr. Damage has a 12 dex to Mr. Cleric Damage's 10). Now, since he's wielding a two-handed weapon, his damage goes up by 2 (gets to add 1.5 str bonus) and he's got about the same AC as Mr. Damage... but he's dealing the same damage as Mr. Defense (only Mr. Defense has +2 atk vis a vis Mr. Cleric Damage). I wouldn't call that competitive with Mr. Damage.

Let's say he goes for Mr. Cleric defense. In that case, he'll be wielding a light shield or buckler in order to be able to cast spells while keeping a weapon in hand. Now, Mr. Defense, being Mr. Defense has invested in some defensive feats: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, etc and having tower shield proficiency uses it. Now that knocks Mr. Defense's attack bonus down by two bringing them even, but Mr. Defense still does two points more damage per hit and has an AC four points higher than Mr. Cleric defense--as well as a lot more options in combat that can increase his damage ouput and reduce the damage he takes.

Now, then let's add in that Mr. Cleric never felt the need to take Power Attack. (You are maintaining that a cleric needs no feats in order to fill the role of a fighter IIRC). Now, in normal situations, optimal power attack will only add a bit to the characters' damage--4 points per hit here, 6 points there. But Power Attack is also the pre-req for Cleave. So, if they're fighting zombies, Mr. Damage is in heaven. He can Power Attack for full and still hit and deal 30-40 points of damage per hit. Since he has Great Cleave (he's Mr. Damage after all) he can clear an entire room of ogre zombies in one or two rounds. Mr Defense can also stow his shield, grab his waraxe in two hands and power attack to his heart's content. He's only going to cleave once per round, but he'll still be dropping 33 hit point mooks in one shot.
Mr Cleric (either version) will take two or three shots to drop each zombie and won't be able to cleave into another. Mr. Cleric is not competitive with the real fighters.

Tacking Divine Favor on as well really makes a difference for Mr. Cleric (though he still at least needs Power Attack), but unless he has Quicken Spell, that's two rounds of buffing. Mr. Damage will have killed all the bad guys by then.

And of course, this assumes that Mr. Cleric started with that 14 strength, 10 dex, 14 con that I mentioned. If Mr. Cleric thinks he can get away with a 10 or 12 strength or a lower Con, even Divine Power and Divine Favor and Righteous Might won't make him competitive.

And it only really takes the 1 round. Now yea, take two rounds and add Righteous Might and its even worse. And of course from about 9th on you could do DP and a Quickened Divine Favor in the same round, and at high level, you can do DP and RM in one round.

Yeah.... you can do DP and RM in the same round (provided you spend an 8th level slot on quickend DP) and that you have the Quicken Spell feat. Without Quicken Spell, you're not going to do it. However, as I pointed out in the last paragraph, if Mr. Cleric wants to be competitive with the fighters, he's going to need to have at least DP and Divine Favor running. So, he needs to be designed to be able to compete with the fighters. Without taking the right feats (Quicken Spell and Power Attack at a minimum) and buying the right items (a good weapon--which isn't cheap, good armor, an ioun stone for Constitution, etc), Mr. Cleric is not competitive with Mr. Fighter.

But why, from a mechanically perspective, would a Cleric do this? Why would a Cleric EVER have a super low Str, seeing as how it would make it very diffacult for him to use his armor profciencies effectively? In most common ability generation systems, a Cleric should be able to have deccent Str, Con and Cha along with high Wis, and at higher levels can get or *make* low-bonus ability increasing items as well.

Two words: Point Buy.

For an effective heavy armor melee character, 14 strength, 10 dex, and 14 con are pretty much the minimum. (Lightly armored characters need more dex).

If you're playing 25 point buy, that leaves you with 11 points for your other three stats. So, you could play 9 int, 16 wis, 8 cha, (Which is a decent spellcasting stat but not a particularly impressive one and is very weak in both Int (no skill points after taking Concentration unless you're human and then only 1/level) and Cha (2 turns/day and at penalties).

On 28 point buy, you're a bit better off. You could have a 17 wisdom (pretty good) 9 int, 8 cha or a 10 int, 16 wis, and 10 cha.

If you go to 32 point buy, you can keep your melee capability at the minimum level and have a 12 int, 16 wis, 12 cha, or buy a 12 dex and go for 10 int, 16 wis, 12 cha.

So, you've got options. But, if you want to have good skillpoints (for instance as a Knowledge domain cleric or a Church Inquisitor) or an impressive charisma, you're going to have to sacrifice some combat ability. Similarly, even under 32 point buy, if you want to really maximize the effectiveness of your offensive spellcasting by starting with a 17 or 18 wisdom, you have to sacrifice some of your abilities. So, a 28 point buy turning and spellcasting focussed cleric might be Str 8, dex 10, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 17, Cha 13

The bottom line is that, unless you're playing with more than a 32 point buy system, you're going to have to sacrifice your combat ability for the combination of very good wisdom and moderate-good charisma. And on lower point buys, you'll have to sacrifice in order to get better than a 15 wisdom. For reasons described above, however, it's not as much of a sacrifice as you seem to think. Depending upon what you spend your feats and gold on, it might well be a situation where you were never going to be good at melee combat anyway.

 

[silyolpooh]

Have you people PLAYED a cleric?

I voted fighter. The TEN bonus feats, in addition to unlimited armour and weapon selections and a d10 for HD make the fighter overpowered from level one.

Now that I'm sure will illicit a number of angry responses, but the following is sure to illicit more. I think anyone who has played a cleric will completely back me up that it is NOT (despite the poll) a powerful class. (Unless you play an evil cleric, in which case all those Harm spells are great). Cleric spells suck, and most of the healing that they're good for can be accomplished with cheap potions. Maybe if I'd picked a fighter in the first place, we wouldn't need as much healing. Clerics have a mediocre BAB. They need a full range of armor because they need it; they have no armor or dodge bonuses like half the other classes. They can't specialize in weapons, they have no sneak attack; they can use weapons (sort of) and that's about it.

In a nutshell, clerics are great second-tear characters, supporting everyone else, but a paladin, ranger, or even another fighter would be far more useful in combat. And a wizard is a more useful spellcaster, and a rogue or bard far more useful for skills. Sure clerics can turn undead, but my advice to any party with or without a cleric: don't go hunting undead. They rarely have good treasure, are tougher than most monsters to get the goods, and are generally a pain with their special attacks. There are plenty of other wrongs and evils in the world that need wronging that can occupy 20 levels. A few potions of invisibility to undead will help you not have to deal with the few in the dungeon you might run across.

 

[Merlion]

If you're going to talk about Divine Metamagic, don't ignore spikes, quill blast, Arcane Heirophant, Nature's Favor, etc. And I think Wall of Thorns and fire seeds are pretty competitive with a lot of the broken cleric spells. Maybe not as broken as the alignment word spells combined with all of the broken caster level boosting tricks in every book and something like miracle for a spellstaff spell (hey look a druid spell) to get the bead of karma, candle of invocation, etc. all working at once but it's pretty close.



That's why I said replace the barbarian. Lots of damage. Not so much AC. But grappling, etc. will provide an instant win in a lot of combats. That's nothing to sneeze at.



Sure. If you have a built-for combat cleric, he's a better combatant than a druid who sacrificed combat ability and just does wildshape. But if your druid is built to take advantage of wildshape, he's easily as good as the cleric.



See the analysis later. Your cleric who has a high wisdom and a decent strength, con, and charisma is a 32 point buy character at the minimum. If he wants decent skills as well, he's out of luck without a 36 point or higher build.



Special manuevers (like Imp Trip and Combat Reflexes or Shock Trooper or Combat Brute if you want to use non-core) make it easier to lay the beatdown on your enemies without getting beat down yourself. More on that later.



The Power Word spells don't strike me as a big deal--it's not like my Wizard uses them... but the reason that domains make a difference is because they can add peak damage output and cut down the prep time for the cleric. A cleric with strength and destruction can start laying the smack down in round 1 by using his domain smite and feat of strength (And a quickened divine favor if he's really worried). Otherwise, it's likely to be round 2 before he does anything constructive. There are lots of good domains, but only some of them make a cleric a better fighter. And the clerics that make people say "this guy's as good as a fighter" are the ones that have those domains.



This is one of the points where it becomes obvious that you haven't played a cleric. The first issue here is a "decent weapon." A good fighter should be able to count on a Greater Magic Weapon from the cleric or wizard so Greater Magic Weapon itself won't make up for the difference. If you're level 10 (the level where clerics can really start getting all their mojo working together), the fighter's weapon is probably +1 holy, +1 wounding, or +1 keen flaming. If your cleric's weapon is just +1, you're already at a disadvantage. If you spend as much money on your weapon as the fighter does, you're sacrificing other possibilities (a good periapt of wisdom which is necessary to make your save or dies effective, for instance) and are already designing yourself into the role of a fighter.

Second, there is the issue of stats. Since we're talking about decent fighters here, let's offer two options:
Mr. Damage: Barbarian 2/Fighter 8 1/2 orc 18 starting strength 12, dex, 14 con--currently 24 (+2 levels, +4 belt) and 28 when raging.
Mr Defense: Fighter 10 dwarf with 16 starting strength, 12 dex, 16 con--currently strength 20 (+2 levels, +2 gauntlets), and 18 con (+2 amulet of health)

Now, our cleric with Divine Power--let's say that he's built to be melee capable (which involves sacrifices elsewhere as I'll explore later) 14 str, 10 dex, 14 con. With Divine Power, he gets a 20 strength and 1 hp fewer than a 10th level fighter with a 14 con. Which is 25 hit points fewer than the raging Mr. Damage and 21 hp fewer than Mr. Defense. His 20 strength is equal to Mr. Defense but FAR lower than Mr. Damage. But that's just stats. Let's look at how that plays out:

Damage output. Both fighters have Greater Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization as well as Improved Critical with their weapons. That means that Mr. Damage has +4 to hit and +5 damage on Mr. Cleric without raging. If he rages, that's +6 to hit and +8 damage. Mr. Defense has +2 to hit and +2 damage on Mr. Cleric.

Defense. Everyone is wearing fullplate. We'll assume that Mr. Cleric is forgoing traditional cleric items like a lesser strand of prayer beads because he wants to be able to compete with the fighters and they all have the same +2 fullplate of light fortification. Now, Mr. Cleric has a choice to make. Does he want to be Mr. Cleric Damage and wield a two-handed weapon or Mr. Cleric Defense and go for a one-handed weapon and shield.

Let's say he goes for Mr. Cleric damage. In that case, his AC will be one point better than Mr. Damage--when Mr. Damage is raging. (Mr. Damage has a 12 dex to Mr. Cleric Damage's 10). Now, since he's wielding a two-handed weapon, his damage goes up by 2 (gets to add 1.5 str bonus) and he's got about the same AC as Mr. Damage... but he's dealing the same damage as Mr. Defense (only Mr. Defense has +2 atk vis a vis Mr. Cleric Damage). I wouldn't call that competitive with Mr. Damage.

Let's say he goes for Mr. Cleric defense. In that case, he'll be wielding a light shield or buckler in order to be able to cast spells while keeping a weapon in hand. Now, Mr. Defense, being Mr. Defense has invested in some defensive feats: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, etc and having tower shield proficiency uses it. Now that knocks Mr. Defense's attack bonus down by two bringing them even, but Mr. Defense still does two points more damage per hit and has an AC four points higher than Mr. Cleric defense--as well as a lot more options in combat that can increase his damage ouput and reduce the damage he takes.

Now, then let's add in that Mr. Cleric never felt the need to take Power Attack. (You are maintaining that a cleric needs no feats in order to fill the role of a fighter IIRC). Now, in normal situations, optimal power attack will only add a bit to the characters' damage--4 points per hit here, 6 points there. But Power Attack is also the pre-req for Cleave. So, if they're fighting zombies, Mr. Damage is in heaven. He can Power Attack for full and still hit and deal 30-40 points of damage per hit. Since he has Great Cleave (he's Mr. Damage after all) he can clear an entire room of ogre zombies in one or two rounds. Mr Defense can also stow his shield, grab his waraxe in two hands and power attack to his heart's content. He's only going to cleave once per round, but he'll still be dropping 33 hit point mooks in one shot.
Mr Cleric (either version) will take two or three shots to drop each zombie and won't be able to cleave into another. Mr. Cleric is not competitive with the real fighters.

Tacking Divine Favor on as well really makes a difference for Mr. Cleric (though he still at least needs Power Attack), but unless he has Quicken Spell, that's two rounds of buffing. Mr. Damage will have killed all the bad guys by then.

And of course, this assumes that Mr. Cleric started with that 14 strength, 10 dex, 14 con that I mentioned. If Mr. Cleric thinks he can get away with a 10 or 12 strength or a lower Con, even Divine Power and Divine Favor and Righteous Might won't make him competitive.



Yeah.... you can do DP and RM in the same round (provided you spend an 8th level slot on quickend DP) and that you have the Quicken Spell feat. Without Quicken Spell, you're not going to do it. However, as I pointed out in the last paragraph, if Mr. Cleric wants to be competitive with the fighters, he's going to need to have at least DP and Divine Favor running. So, he needs to be designed to be able to compete with the fighters. Without taking the right feats (Quicken Spell and Power Attack at a minimum) and buying the right items (a good weapon--which isn't cheap, good armor, an ioun stone for Constitution, etc), Mr. Cleric is not competitive with Mr. Fighter.



Two words: Point Buy.

For an effective heavy armor melee character, 14 strength, 10 dex, and 14 con are pretty much the minimum. (Lightly armored characters need more dex).

If you're playing 25 point buy, that leaves you with 11 points for your other three stats. So, you could play 9 int, 16 wis, 8 cha, (Which is a decent spellcasting stat but not a particularly impressive one and is very weak in both Int (no skill points after taking Concentration unless you're human and then only 1/level) and Cha (2 turns/day and at penalties).

On 28 point buy, you're a bit better off. You could have a 17 wisdom (pretty good) 9 int, 8 cha or a 10 int, 16 wis, and 10 cha.

If you go to 32 point buy, you can keep your melee capability at the minimum level and have a 12 int, 16 wis, 12 cha, or buy a 12 dex and go for 10 int, 16 wis, 12 cha.

So, you've got options. But, if you want to have good skillpoints (for instance as a Knowledge domain cleric or a Church Inquisitor) or an impressive charisma, you're going to have to sacrifice some combat ability. Similarly, even under 32 point buy, if you want to really maximize the effectiveness of your offensive spellcasting by starting with a 17 or 18 wisdom, you have to sacrifice some of your abilities. So, a 28 point buy turning and spellcasting focussed cleric might be Str 8, dex 10, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 17, Cha 13

The bottom line is that, unless you're playing with more than a 32 point buy system, you're going to have to sacrifice your combat ability for the combination of very good wisdom and moderate-good charisma. And on lower point buys, you'll have to sacrifice in order to get better than a 15 wisdom. For reasons described above, however, it's not as much of a sacrifice as you seem to think. Depending upon what you spend your feats and gold on, it might well be a situation where you were never going to be good at melee combat anyway.

And none of this takes away from the salient points.

A Cleric shouldnt be able to compete with a Fighter at all, really. Nor should a Druid. A Cleric should not have a spell that gives him another classes BAB, especially when BAB is one of the primary features of that class.


And when I say competitive, I dont mean equal. I mean competitve. Yes, a very well built fighter made by someone who really knows the numbers will do better than a Cleric who just casts Divine Power. But the Cleric will still be doing better than he has any business doing.


I still dont see Wild Shape as a serious balance issue. I think the biggest issue with the two classes together is that they are too durable....they have to few real vulnerabilities. Not just areas of less than expertise...vulnerabilities like low HP or poor Fort or Will saves.

I also think the Cleric in particular is likely to steal the thunder of other classes, especialy the Bard, and fighter types...while still maintaining assorted other spell abilities.

Also bear in mind that even if the Cleric cant easily become quite as good a Fighter as the Fighter, I think its not at all incorect to say that a party of 4 Clerics...even without being ultra optimized in a given area...would probably do better than most other party combinations (even more so for 3 Clerics and a rogue).


Obviously you've had more troubles with Druids than Clerics. I'm not disputing that. I do think that looking at the rules alone, the prize for most overpowered class goes to Cleric. But they both need work. Both in terms of core, and that WOTC needs to stop spitting out broken spells and feats for either of them.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

And none of this takes away from the salient points.

A Cleric shouldnt be able to compete with a Fighter at all, really. Nor should a Druid. A Cleric should not have a spell that gives him another classes BAB, especially when BAB is one of the primary features of that class.

And why not? A rogue can compete with a fighter if he spends all his abilities and focuses himself in that area. A wizard with a little multiclassing can do it as well. If a cleric who focuses his abilities in that area can't do well, that seems like a problem to me. (Especially if you go your route. Can't compete with the fighter, can't compete with the bard, can't compete with the wizard--what's he supposed to do, sit back and play band-aid dispenser?)

And when I say competitive, I dont mean equal. I mean competitve. Yes, a very well built fighter made by someone who really knows the numbers will do better than a Cleric who just casts Divine Power. But the Cleric will still be doing better than he has any business doing.

Neither of those fighters I suggested are exceptionally well built fighters. Sure, they're built by someone who knows the numbers, but they're probably the two most obvious paths to take a fighter and didn't take advantage of any prestige classes, non-core feats, or unusual magic items. And still, either of them are better than a cleric who just casts Divine Power. In fact, they're at least as good as a cleric with martial weapon proficiency and combat focused stats who has Power Attack, Quicken Spell, and both Divine Power and Divine Favor running in the one or two combats per day that the cleric can manage that. You need to be a very focused battle cleric to beat either of them and you can still only do it so many times per day. (And with some significant vulnerabilities to dispel magic and reciprocal gyre as well as noticable prep time). What exactly is the problem with that again?

 

[moritheil]

In our party, we have a Drd 16. The player is somewhat new to the game, and doesn't really get into the minutia like I do, even after playing the PC for a while. It's not surprising her PC isn't overpowered.

But when I play (rather than DM), I give her suggestions.....and suddenly her PC rocks the house. The change is dramatic. Usually all that's required is a list of useful spells and animal forms.

Given the ease of the transformation.............

Sorry, Nail, but I really cannot see this as a valid argument. It seems to me that we should be concerned with the maximum attainable power level in a class given an experienced and canny player, not which class is most easily learned by new players. It's a nice thing if some classes are easier to learn, but it's not really relevant re: their ultimate power levels.