Wizards vs. Clerics

[Shard O'Glase]

Well if you consider everything said here it's quite obvious..
They're balanced (Darn that WotC for playtesting ). And ofcourse you can go on giving more scenario's in which one is better, but as long as noone can prove that one is better in every scenario all the time I stand by my point that their balanced

Not sure if I buy into that theory of balance. Under that theory, I could kick the clerics HD down to d4 give him 1 good save, crap bab, remove domains, remove every attack spell and still say there balanced because the cleric is better in situations requiring healing.

 

[Allanon]

Not sure if I buy into that theory of balance. Under that theory, I could kick the clerics HD down to d4 give him 1 good save, crap bab, remove domains, remove every attack spell and still say there balanced because the cleric is better in situations requiring healing.

No because you're assumption is based on a single scenario something I point out is always a short sighted view of things. What I meant was that however you'll look at this they're always means and ways in which one will outshine the other... Only never all the time in every situation.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I believe WotC as even admitted that the cleric may look a bit "too good" on paper.

But, in function, the cleric rarely gets to shine in anything other than making the other members of the party feel good. For as much of a machine the Cleric can be if he buffs himself up, imagine how much GREATER is the threat of buffing up the local fighter, barbarian, or paladin? The vast majority of a cleric's spells are protective, buffing, or curative, and so they're not going to get much of a chance to lay the smack down themselves. The domain powers are semi-crap. Even a cleric with the Magic domain will be shown up by a wizard (so why bother being a second-rate wizard?), and a cleric with the Strength and War domains will still not be as effective a fighter as the Fighter (so why bother being a second-rate fighter?). And some...whoop-dee-doo, really, to much of 'em, which come into play about as often as a Ranger's favored enemy.

The cleric gets a LOT of goodies, true. But it's still not a popular class, and thus it doesn't pass the "if it's chosen all the time, it's too powerful" argument, because it's NOT chosen all the time because the thing it's powerful AT is in making everybody else better. And in a game like D&D, everyone wants to be the enemy-bashing heroes. It's hard to play the "glue" that holds the party together.

Even a cleric that focuses on blowin' stuff up won't be as good at it as a wizard. An NPC cleric has a bit of an advantage there, because they usually don't have a party to buff and/or heal, and so can devote all of their magic to blowin' stuff up, but even then a Wizard will outshine the cleric in terms of how often and how potent their blow-ups are.

Think about it. Flame Strike is about equivalent to a potent Fireball...and a wizard of the same level can be hasted, throw out two of 'em, and probably metamagic them so that they're more potent than normal anyway. A cleric's boom spells are for when they don't have to heal or buff.

I mean, take a look at the White Mage on FFd20 for evidence -- that class has *all* the possible blow-ups taken away, and their healing enhanced, and nobody who's played one yet has thought the class was anything other than weak. Even though they often outshine the cleric alone in times of healing and buffing, and are still no slouch in the BAB/HD category...

Being able to blow crap up goes a LONG way toward making a class playable. And Clerics, for all their "perks," generally can't blow stuff up as good as ANY of the other classes, especially when you consider that those other classes would normally be buffed by the cleric...because why be a second rate anything when you can make your first rate something even better? (unless something tragic happens to your first rate -- in which case, the cleric's powers as a second-line whatever come into play).

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I believe WotC as even admitted that the cleric may look a bit "too good" on paper.

But, in function, the cleric rarely gets to shine in anything other than making the other members of the party feel good. For as much of a machine the Cleric can be if he buffs himself up, imagine how much GREATER is the threat of buffing up the local fighter, barbarian, or paladin?


Being able to blow crap up goes a LONG way toward making a class playable. And Clerics, for all their "perks," generally can't blow stuff up as good as ANY of the other classes, especially when you consider that those other classes would normally be buffed by the cleric...because why be a second rate anything when you can make your first rate something even better? (unless something tragic happens to your first rate -- in which case, the cleric's powers as a second-line whatever come into play).

Sorry for the cutting job but these are the 2 areas I want to focus on.

Buffing. At low levels I agree the cleric is better off buffing the fighter types. Mid to high elvels i disagree. Many of the clerics best buffs are self only, and almsot all the buffs you'd cast on the fighter, the fighter probably already has as a permanent item.(low amgic games differ of course) I've gotten that your playing your character selfish crap, when my bulls str spells could only if i rolled a 4 boost the fighters str by one and my greater magic weapon spells would only help the fighters weapon by 1, while on myself they brought me up from + no boosts in str, and a +1 weapon to +4. Casting these buffs on the fighter at this stage is just a waste. On myself I'd add a good fighter to the group for the cost of a few spells, which i have plenty of.

Blow stuff up: I'd agree at low to mid levels the cleric is worse off in the direct damage spells. But almost from the begining the clerics spells are as good or dang close to it in combat IMO. This is because they have no lack of save or die spells which for me are the deadliest spells in the game. Maybe I'm just unlucky or just remember them more but more monsters that actually pose a threat to the party have been taken out with cleric spells than with wizard spells. It may be because clerics lack the ig booms so when taking attack spells they are almost always save or else spells, I don't know, but contagion, bestow curse, hold person(2nd level), destruction, slay living etc have had a biger effect on fghts, than the fireballs or cones of colds.

Then at high levels clerics get some of the better DD spells, firestorm is perhaps the best overall DD spell in the game. 20d6 cap, and a large shapeable area. They don't have near the variety butt with die caps you only really need or want the high level oens when you are high level anyways.

 

[Victim]

Well, since my cleric was the one making the fighters' magic weapons, I usually made stuff like a +1 Holy Flaming sword for the paladin, etc. GMW goes a long way when weapons are short plusses and long on abilities. Empowered spells are more useful high level buffs. Alternatively, the fighter can rely on cleric buffs instead of items and save gold - maybe he gets some see invis goggles instead. OT Rant: See invis is such a pain to confer on others. You have to go all the way to True Seeing for a spell that works on others.

Firestorm can't hold a candle to Horrid Wilting. 20d6 Fire damage versus 20d8 non elemental, damage with no evasion. The shapeable area is nice, because it grows with levels, but Horrid Wilting is selective too.

And arcane spell lists have mostly comparable save or die spells. They have sleep, color spray, Hold person and hold monster, polymorph, disintegrate, circle of death (bleh), finger of death, wail of the banshee.

 

[mearls]

A Not Entirely Serious Answer

For me, it's really simple.

When a cleric passes on, he gets to journey to the outer planes where he spends eternity as his deity's lap dog.

When a wizard gets up there in years, he turns himself into a lich, builds a trap-riddled tomb, and spends eternity devouring the souls of adventurers who show up to loot the place.

Advantage: Wizard.

There's also a rich tradition of wizardly achievement.

Who built the Tomb of Horrors?

A wizard.

Who stole Blackrazor, Whelm, and Wave?

A wizard.

Who threatened to destroy Krynn and singlehandedly destroy the entire Dragonlance pantheon?

A wizard.

And to top it off, what was TSR's byline?

The Game Wizards. Not the Game Clerics. The Game Wizards.

So yeah, you can take your superior HD, base attack bonus, and a spell list that has run out of control since its original, reasonable presentation in 1st ed (no damaging spells at 1st and 2nd level), plus the crime of removing the OD&D rule that 1st-level clerics couldn't even cast spells.

I'll take a wizard, because a wizard says STYLE.

(And don't even get me started about sorcerers. Pah! Mere pretenders to the mantle of magehood.)

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

Re: A Not Entirely Serious Answer

Mike;

Yeah, yeah.

Wizards do a lot of stuff. They are movers and shakers to be sure.

But ask yourself this:

Who always gets BEAT UP by the heroes?

The WIZARD.

Sure, a wizard stole Blackrazor, Whelm and Wave, but then 5-7th level heroes killed him and TOOK HIS STUFF.

Sure, a wizard build the Tomb of Horrors and tried to reach Apotheosis, but then 13th-15th level heroes killed him and TOOK HIS STUFF.


And as to this bit:

(And don't even get me started about sorcerers. Pah! Mere pretenders to the mantle of magehood.)

Just you wait til I finish writing the Quint. Sorcerer! Then Sorcerers will be the MOST MUNCHY CHARACTERS EVER!

OH YEAH! Patrick Y.

 

[Sanackranib]

wizards & clerics

IMO neither is better all of the time and the adverage successfull party will have to use the strengths of all its members to offset their individual weaknesses

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

With this in mind, why bother playing a wizard, especially when the sorcerer is around?

While I agree the cleric package looks better than the wizard from a mechanical POV, the key advantage of the wizard is it is Flashier. Remember that this is a Game. People play Games to have Fun. Flashy makes for more Fun. Therefore wizards are better than clerics. It is that simple.

BTW, it takes a tremendous amount of strategical & tactical savvy to compete with Fly, Haste, Dimension Door, Teleport, Dominate Person, Wall of Force, Passwall, and Disintegrate. Not that it can't be done, but it ain't easy.

(Another thing you may not have noticed is that clerics are anemic when it comes to spell range. See Sepulchrave's story hour to see an example of a high level druid crushing an army 'well protected' by many clerics of different levels.)

As for sorcerors, it depends a lot on the style of the campaign whether it is better than a wizard. Spell selection can be very important.

 

[JoeGKushner]

For me, wizards and clerics are two different kettles of fish. In some aspects, I hate the cleric as it's a spelled up paladin, hailing from a military order more than one that originates with fat clergymen and the corruption they often bring to the church.

Wizards on the other hand... well, there are many, many, many sourcebooks on expanding and altering them and they're are many goodies that most normal clerics just don't get.

Each class has it's pros and cons but for me, it's the wizard.